13502

Effective date. These amendments areeffective on May 12,1975.

Dated: March 21, 1975.0. W. SILER,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard,Commandant.

[FR Doc.75-7985 Filed 3-26-75;8:45 am]

Title 49-TransportationCHAPTER, I--DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATIONSUBCHAPTER B-OFFICE OF PIPELINE

SAFETY[Docket No. OPS-18; Amdt. 192-20]

PART 192-TRANSPORTATION OF NAT-URAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE,MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STAND-ARDS

,Line Markers.-or Mains and TransmissionLines

This amendment revises the existingrequirement in § 192.707 for marking thelocation of gas transmission lines andestablishes new marking requirementsfor gas distribution mains under thatsection. The purpose of this amendmentIs to alleviate a major cause of failuresin gas pipelines-interference with/pipe-lines by persons outside the gas pipelineindustry conducting excavation-relatedactivities. Installation of line markers inaccordance with these revised require-ments should increase the likelihood thatoutsiders will seek assistance in locatingunderground lines before excavating.Also the revised requirements should in-fluence operators to encourage State'orlocal governments to adopt programs forpreventing interference with under-ground pipelines.

On May 19, 1972, the Director isued anotice of proposed rule making to amend§ 192.707 (37 FR 10578; May 25, 1972)to specify locations for line markers andthe information to be inscribed on them.Due to the large number of persons 1ff-terested in the proceeding, the originaldeadline for submitting written informa-tion, views, or arguments was extended toAugust 17, 1972, (37 FR 13351; July 7,1972). The comments received as a ;e-suit of the notice have been fully con-sidered by the Office of Pipeline Safety(OPS) in developing the final rule.

Ther'e were 126 persons who com-mented on the notice. A majority of thecommenters recognize the need to reducethe number of pipeline failures due toInterference by outsiders, but believe thatthe costs 4of implementing the proposedline marking program would far out-weigh any benefits that'might beobtained.

OPS believes that the final rule allevi-ates the objection to the proposal ex-pressed by these commenters. Compli-ance with the revised line marking re-quirement will involve capital expendi-ture, but much less than would have beenrequired by the proposed rule. Further-more, the revised standard should bene-fit the public by reducing risk of harm,and benefit operators by reducing losses,claims for damage, and expense of serv-lce interruptions. Unfortunately, because

RULES AND REGULATIONS

data is not available on the effectiveness.of existing line markers in preventingdamage to pipelines, the amount offuture benefits from line marking underthe 'revised rule cannot be determinedwith precision.

The final rule is modified to improveeconomic practicability in many re-spects. First, the proposed requirementthat each marker be visible from preced-'ing and following markers s deleted.Secondly, lead times for compliance areprovided both for existing markers, asproposed, and for installing line markersnot required by the existing rule. Lastly,markers are not required in Class 3 andClass 4 locations where operators aresuccessful in encouraging State or localgovernments to enact programs for pre-venting damage to pipelines by outsiders,and where placement of markers is Im-practical.

A large number of commenters sug-gested that carrying out programs otherthan line marking would be much moreeffective in reducing the number of ac-cidents caused by outsiders. Some of thesuggested programs involve a "one call"system, a construction permit system,education, better coxmunication be-tween-operators and outsiders, and legis-lation.

OPS agrees with these comments. Linemarking is only a partial solution for th6problem of pipeline failures caused bydamage during excavation. Line mark-ing, however, is an important step whichoperators can take as part of their re-sponsibility to prevent that type of dam-age in the absence of a more effectiveprogram. Programs which are enforce-able under law against outsiders and pro-vide them with information as to thelocation of underground pipelies areprobably the best means of reducingdamage caused by outside parties. OP.has encouraged the development of onesuch program by drafting and distribut-ing to State and local governments amodel statute aimed at preventing ex-cavation-type damage through a con-struction permit system. The promulga-tion of this amendment is in furtheranceof this prior effort. The revised standardnot only attacks the problem of inter-ference with pipelines by outsidersdirectly through regulation of gas oper-ators but also encourages the develop-ment of other damage prevention pro-grams.

Several commenters remarked thatstatistics, reports, and experience showthat: (1) Most incidents occur wherepipelines are marked. (2) Outsiders fallto call or check with the operator as- re-quested on markers. (3) Contractorshave a careless attitude toward pro-tecting underground lines. (4) A sig-nificant amount of damage occurs at newconstruction sites before markers are in-stalled. On the basis of these factors,the commenters conclude that increasingthe number of pipeline markers wouldnot significantly reduce damage causedby outsiders.

OPS does not concur with this conclu-sion. While it is true that, for example,in the year 1972, approximately two-

thirds of reported leaks caused by out-side parties on distribution lines occur-red - vhere pipelines were marked, thereports do not reflect the accuracy oradequacy of the markers Involved. Op-erators use various kinds of permanentand temporary line markers. Data Is not'available on the effectiveness of thesemarkers in properly warning outsidersof the presence of underground pipe-lines. Furthermore, the statistic is mis-leading because, due to a lack of per-tinent data, it cannot be compared withthe percentage of excavation-related a-tivitie8 conducted by outsiders nearmarked distribution lines. In the ab-sence of either type of Information, OPSbelieves It Is reasonable to conclude thatmarkers which are properly placed,maintained, and inscribed will alert out-siders to the presence of undergroundlines and thus reduce the potential fordamage.

As for the failure of outsiders to no-tify operators before excavating, OPSexpects that markers worded as requiredby the final rule will increase the likeli-hood that outsiders will seek assistancein determining the location of pipelines.More markers with uniform wordingcould also affect an outsider's attitudetoward interference with pipelines dur-ing excavation activities. With respect todamage in areas undergoing new con-struction, the requirement to mark un-derground pipelines is binding on oper-ators as soon as the lines are burled andin operation. The rule does not providean exception for circumstances involv-ing construction by outsiders, Onemethod of compliance in this situationwould be to install temporary markersuntil outside construction Is complete,Then, the temporary markers could beremoved and replaced by permanentones.

Some commenters asked why the no-'tice did not provide an exemption foroffshore pipelines from the proposed linemarking requirements. The existing re-quirement of § 192.707 for markingtransmission lines applies to offshore aswell as onshore pipelines. OPS ls-cur-rently considering the need to amend theexisting standards in Part 192 as they re-late to the transportation of gas offshore.The desirability of marking offshorepipelines Is an issue which was raised forp-qblic discussion in an OPS advance no-tice of proposed rule making on offshorepipeline facilities: Docket No. OPS-30,Notice No. 74-6 (39 FR 34568; Septem-ber 26, 1974). As a result of that pro-

.ceeding, OPS will publish a notice of Itsdecision whether to propose an amend-ment to the line marking requirementwith respect to offshore pipelines.

A number of changes have been madein the proposed rule on the basis of com-ments received. The major changes, aswell as the response by OPS to com-ments Which did not result In changes,are discussed below.

Paragraph (a), buried pipelines. Thenotice proposed that line markers be!placed- "over" each burled main andtransmission line at certain locations.Many commenters noted that from a

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 60-THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1975

1975

RULES AND REGULATIONS

compliance standpoint, line markers can-not alwiays be placed directly "over" apipeline. For example, in swamps andplaced "over" each buried main andmarshes and at navigable waterwaycrossings, line-markers are often offsetfrom a pipeline so the marker can beproperly supported. OPS realizes thispractice may be contrary to a notionheld by some that a pipeline lies di-rectly underneath a marker. Yet, it isconsistent with the primary purpose ofline markers to warn the public of thepresence of a pipeline and to provide a

_telephone number to call for more spe-cific information.

OPS agrees that requiring markers di-rectly over a pipeline in all cases wouldbe too restrictive. The final Tule, there-fore, prefaces the word "over" by thephrase "as close as practical." This'change provides obierators flexibility tooffset markers a reasonable distance

" from a pipeline wherever necessary. Forinstance, offsetting may be necessary toobtain support for the marker, avoid anobstruction, or facilitate maintenance.

The proposed requirement that amarker be visible from the immediatelypreceding and following marker is notincluded in the final rule. This proposalwas intended as an aid to outsiders indetermining the route of a pipeline.Commenters. remarked, however, thatcompliance could entail costly construc-tion of towers or many additional mark-ers at locations not otherwise warrantedby safety considerations. Compliancecould also spoil the natural beauty ofmany areas. The OPS believes that theseadverse consequences would outweigh thepossible advantages contemplated by theproposal. OPS believes that deleting therequirement from the final rule does notweaken the intention or effectiveness ofthe remaining provisions of paragraph(a).

After considering objections raised bya majority of the Technical PipelineSafety Standards Committee (TPSSC),the proposal under § 192.707(a) (2) in thenotice is not adopted. This proposalwould have required line markers .atfences and property boundaries. OPSnow believes that placement of markers

-af these numerous locations would becostly and not yield a commensuratesafety benefit.

Wording is added at the conclusion of§ 192.707(a) to provide operators of ex-isting buried mains or transmission linesapproximately 3 years' lead time (untilJanuary 1, 1978) to comply with the newline marking requirements imposed bythis amendment. The 3-year period wasrecommended by the TPSSC. The leadtime does not apply to transmission linesunder § 192.707(a) (2) because that sec-tion'merely restates the* existing require-ment of § 192.707. This additional timebeyond the general effective date for thisamendment should be used by operatorsto prepare ,for compliance or, in accord-ance with § 192.707(b) (1) (i1), to seekenactment of alternative damage pre-vention programs at the State or locallevel.

Paragraph& (b), exception for buriedpipelines. The notice included exceptionsfrom the proposed marking requirementsfor buried lines in heavily developedareas. These exceptions provided thatline markers would not be required fortransmission lines, where both placementis impracticable and the local govern-ment maintains current substructurerecords, and for distribution mains,where either criterion for exemption re-specting transmission lines occurs. Onereason for the exceptions was to give op-erators limited but necessary discretionas to placement of markers based onpracticability. The primary purpose,however, was to influence operators toencourage local governments to establishconstruction permit systems in heavilydeveloped areas related to currentlymaintained records. of underground pipe-lines.

In the final rule, the proposed excep-tions for marking buried pipelines aremodified -slightly. The exception forsituations where placement Is "Impracti-cable" is changed to apply where place-ment is "impractical." Many commentersobjected that since "Impracticable"means impossible, the proposed exceptionwould have extremely limited applica-tion.

Also, the proposed exceptions inheavily developed areas for situationswhere a local government naintains cur-rent substructure records are broadenedunder § 192.707(b) (1) to apply equallyto mains and transmission lines in Class3 or Class 4 locations "where a programfor preventing interference with under-ground plpelinbs is established by law."The change from "heavily developedareas" to "Class 3 or Class 4 locations" ismade for clarity. The exceptions apply Inthese locatqns because of the dilcultyin placing markers there, the estheticobjections to markers in these areas, andbecause Class 3 and Class 4 areas havethe greatest need for government enactedprograms to prevent interference withunderground pipelines.

In the final rule, a government enacteddamage prevention program qualifies asan exemption under the new line mark-ing requirement even though It Is notrelated to government maintenance ofunderground substructure records. OPSagrees with commenters who pointed outthat local governments may not wish tomaintain these records and that opera-tors are better able to keep current rec-ords of pipelines. Also, there are cur-rently various types of damage preven-tion programs In effect. This change,therefore, adds flexibility to the final ruleby exempting placement of markers, forexample, where an operator participatesin a government program by answeringcalls from contractors on the basis of theoperator's own records. The broadenedexemption also has the benefit of encour-aging State controlled programs in Class3 or Class 4 areas for prevention of dam-age .to pipelines rather than just en-couraging programs on a local level

Many commenters and the TPSSCpointed out that most of the current

damage prevention programs are con-ducted by the operators themselves, al-though not under the auspices of a Stateor local government. They also pointedout the difflculty In obtaining timely gov-ernmental action on an operator-spon-sored program as an alternative to linemarking. As a result, these commentersand the TPSSC believe an operator-runprogram for prevention of excavation-:type damage is Just as satisfactory asone run by a State or local government.OPS does not entirely agree.

The primary objective of a. damage-prevention program is to notify outsidecontractors preparing to excavate of thelocation of underground pipelines. Oncea contractor is aware of the existence ofa pipeline, the contractor must exercisecare in excavating near the line. Al-though an operator-run program, whichmay include advertising, can be a vitalpart In preventing damage by outsiders,It would not provide as strong an incen-tive for outsfders to learn the preciselocations of pipelines as would a programbacked by government sanctions. Thisdoes not mean there0 no room for op-erators In a government program- Afterall operators are the ones most likely tohave up-to-the-minute information onpipeline locations. Undoubtedly, a gov-ernment-run program must heavily relyon operator cooperation.

A program under §192.707(a) (2) maybe as simple or as complex as a govern-ment considers necessary. In fact, asimple requirement that outsiders con-tact operators for information before ex-cavating would suffice. Alternatively, anIndustry-run "one call" program backedby State or local law could be used. Whenoperators are so notified before excava-tion, they should respond with assistancein locating underground lines in theara of excavation. OPS anticipates thatcriteria for programs serving s an alter-native to' line marking may be the sub-Ject of a future rule-making proceeding.

A further question arises that if an ex-ception to line marking applies n Class3 and Class 4 locations because of a gov-ernment enacted program, should the.same exceptionapply in.Class l and Class2 locations where a government programexists? The TPSSC recommended thatthe exemption apply regardless of loca-tion. OPS has not adopted the recom-mendation for two reasons. First, the riskof encountering underground utilitiesduring excavation is less in rural loca-tions than In more developed areas. Asa consequence, outsiders In rural areasare probably less likely to anticipate theexistence of underground utilities or tobe aware of a government enacted pro-gram. Secondly, a government programin less developed areas might not applyto farming activities. Thus, in most ofthese cases, farmers would not be madeaware of the location of undergroundpipelinesIn the absence of line markers.

Likewise, the TPSSC recommendedthat the exception to the line markingrequirement for impractical situations beextended to apply in Class 1 and Class 2locations. This recommendation was not

FEDERAL" REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 60-THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1975

13503

RULES AND REGULATIONS

adopted because, as proposed, the excep-tion is intended to facilitate placementof markers In heavily developed areas.OPS does not believe that rural areasneed the same considerations.

OPS still recognizes the difficulties InInstalling line markers over gas mainsin urbanized areas. Yet, in the absence ofalternative programs established by a.State or local government, OPS con-siders inexmarking the most effectivemeans for protecting against interfer-ence with buried lines by outsiders.

In the final rule, one last change ismade to the exceptions for buried pipe-lines. After considering comments madeby the TPSSC, OPS adopted the excep-tion that in the case of navigable water-way crossings, a line marker is not re-quired within 100 feet of a line markerwhich is placed and maintained at thatwaterway in accordance with the re-quirements of § 192.707. This changealleviates the proliferation of signs whichwould otherwise result under § 192.707where multiple pipelines cross a water-way in proximity.

Paragraph (c), plipelines aboveground.This paragraph is not changed, excepteditorially, from the way it was proposedin the notice.

Paragraph (d), markers other than atnavigable waterways. This paragraphsets forth requirements for line markerswhich are not at navigable waterways.Each marker must have written on it theword "Warning," "Caution," or "Danger."The requirement is changed from thenotice which proposed that only the word"Warning" be used. Many commentersobjected that existing line markers whichhave words with a similar meaning wouldhave to be changed unnecessarily. OPSagrees that the words "Caution" and"Danger" notify the public of the hazardinvolved as sufficiently as the word,"Warning." Providing a selection ofwords allows an operator to choose theone traditionally used in certain areas.

The notice proposed certain minimumsizes for lettering the word "Warning"and, in the case of markers at navigablewaterway crossings, the words "Do NotAnchor or Dredge." Commenters ob-jected to this proposal because of thevarious sizes and types of markers inexistence and the additional cost of com-pliance for relettering or installing newsigns to accommodate the minimum lef-ter sizes. r

The size of lettering is only one factoramong many determining visibility andlegibility of words by a viewer. Anotheris the contrast of colors between thewords and their background. OPS doesnot believe that safety and the intentionof this proceeding necessitate a precisestandard for all factors governing visibil-ity or legibility of the inscription onmarkers. However, certain minimum re-quirements are necessary in the public,interest to judge the quality of noticeprovided by a line marker, and to ensurea standard of maintenance. OPS recog-nizes, however, the difficulty in meetinga minimum letter requirement formarkers in urban areas, as, for example,on paving inserts. In the final rule, there-

fore, the performance standard for colorcontrasts and, except for markers inurban areas, the proposed specificationfor letter sizes are adopted for linemarkers not at navigable waterways. Cri-teria for visibility and legibility appli-cable to markers at navigable waterwaysis discussed hereafter. The lead time forcompliance of existing line markers per-mitted by paragraph (f) should alleviatesome of the objections concerning costof compliance.

Paragraph (e), mcrkers at navigablewaterways. In the finAl rule, a new para-graph (e) is added to provide more de-tailed requirements for line markers atnavigable waterways. The United StatesCoast Guard is concerned that signs in-tended to warn mariners of pipelinecrossings would not be readily recognizedunless they conform to a standard sys-tem for providing navigational informa-tion. OPS agrees. Line markers at navi-gable waterways are primarily intendedto warn vessel operators of a potentialdanger. Therefore, they should be con-structed according to a format generallyunderstood by mariners. One widelyadopted format for aids to navigation isthe Uniform State Waterway MarkingSystem (USWMS). This system Is setforth in 33 CFR Subpart 66.10.

In the final rule, § 192.707(e) is writ-ten to ensure that line markers at navi-gable waterways conform to the USWMS.Compliance with the revised standardshould not be construed, however, to sat-isfy Federal statites or regulations per-taining to the marking of pipelines whichobstruct navigation. The intended effectof the OPS marking requirements is notto equal or supersede similar require-ments of the U.S. Coast Guard or theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but to becompatible with them. Thus, where amarker is required at a navigable water-way by these agencies, a single sign whichcomplies with § 192.707 can be used.

There are notable differences betweenmarkers required at navigable water-ways and elsewhere. At waterways,markers must be rectangular whiteslins with an international orangeborder. All lettering on the sign must beblack and in block style. The size of thesign and lettering on it are governed bya requirement that in. overcast daylightthe sign be visible, and prescribed writ-Ing be legible, from approaching or pass-ing vessels that may damage or inter-fere with the pipeline. In planning aidsto navigation, the Coast Guard uses arule of thumb that the distance in feet atwhich a sign may be read is approxi-mately 40 times the letter height ininches. This rule of thumb could be usedin placing markers at navigable water-ways under § 192.707(e).

In submitting material to the TPSSCfor this proceeding, OPS proposed that bdiamond shape outlined in internationalorange be centered on the rectangularsigns at navigable waterway crossings.This proposal, which was in conformitywith the USWMS, would have resulted inan unnecessary expense to operators. Inthis regard, the minority views of onemember of the Committee, which ex-

plain the problem in greater detail, wereadopted and are set forth below.

Paragraph (f), existing markers. Theproposal provided a 3-year lead time foroperators to bring their existing markersinto compliance with the proposed In-scription requirements. The lead timewas considered necessary because of thevarious sizes and shapes of markers inuse which might have to be replaced toaccommodate the proposed Inscription,The lead time would allo W temporaryuse of these markers.

Many commenters pointed out thatnormal sign attrition is much longer than3 years. Having to replace recently In-stalled signs within 3 years would be anunnecessary cost burden ultimately metby the public. These commenters sug-gested a requirement that existingmarkers without proper Inscriptions bereplaced In a normal maintenance cycle.Since a "normal" maintenance cycleundoubtedly varies from operator tooperator, OPS does not concur with thissuggestion. However, In light of the com-ments and recommendations by theTPSSC, the final rule permits existingmarkers which meet the location require-ments to be used until January 1, 1980,

Report of the Technical PipelineSafety Standards Committee. Section4(b) of the Natural Gas Pipeline SafetyAct of 1968 requires that all proposedstandards and amendments to suchstandards be submitted to the Committeeand that the Committee be afforded areasonable opportunity to prepare a re-port on the "technical feasibility, rea-sonableness, and practicability of eachsuch proposal." This amendment to Part192 was submitted to the Committee asItem 4 in a list of five proposed amend-ments. The Committee has made a favor-able report which Is set forth below. Also,the two Committee members who dis-agreed with the majority of the Commit-tee on Item 4 submitted statements oftheir views which are .set forth followingthe report.

JANvruy 17, 1975.Memorandum to: The Se-rotary of Transpor-

tation. Attention: Joseph 0. Caldwell,Director, Office of Pipeline Safety.

From: Secretary, Technical Pipeline SafetyStandards Committee.

Subject: Proposed Changes to 49 C M, Part192, Minimum Federal Safety Standardsfor Transportation of Natural and OtherGases by Pipeline.

The following letter and attachments rep-resent an official report by the TechnicalPipeline Safety Standards Committee con-cerning the Committee's action related tofive proposed amendments to 49 OFCR Part192, Minimum Federal Safety Standards forTransportation of Natural and Other Gasesby Pipeline.

The Committee revlwed the propoals ofthe Office of Pipeline Safety at a meeting,held in Washington, D.C, on October 30 and31, 1974, and through an informal ballotingprocedure recommended certain modifica-tions, some of which were acceptable to theOffice of Pipeline Safety. A formal ballot, re-flecting the suggested changes, was preparedand distributed to the Committee members,by the undersigned on December 5. 1074.

Formal ballots have been submitted byall fourteen members of the Committee. The

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 60-THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1975

RULES"AND REGULATIONS

majority of the Committee approved al fiveItems-on the ballot as being technically feasi-ble, reasonable, and practicable. Negativevotes were cast by one member against Items1, 2, and 3, by two members against Item 4and by four members against Item 5. Another

,member, who had been -unable to attendthe meeting and participate in the discus-sions, abstained from voting.

Attachment A sets forth the minority opin-'Ions submitted in -support of the negativevoteson Items 4 and 5.

LoU3s W. MMn4ois.

DzcmmaR 16, 1974.Mr. LouIs W. M3moNsA,Federal Power Commission,Washington, D.C.

DraA Mm. MzsmoNs : Attached is my ex-ecuted letter ballot on five proposed amend-menits to 49 C17 .Part 192 relative to theAgenda for the Technical Pipeline SafetyStandards Committee meeting held on Oc-tober 30-31, 1974-

1 have voted'amrmatively on Items 1, 2, and3and negatively on Items 4 and 5. My reasonsfor -the negative votes are as follows:

It-e 4. My objection, is restricted to pro-'posed § 192.707(d) (1) with the clause "ex-cept for markers in heavily developed urbanareas' This clause leaves the size' of the let-tering of a marker in wuch areas completelyunregulated in those areas most subject topipeline damage with the greatest exposure.to life and property.-

Moreover, "heavily developed urban areas"was not defined. To many, including myself,It describes metropolitan areas of large cities.To others, and this was borne out at themeeting, it would include residential areas ofhigh-priced hmes.

Moreover,. proposed § 192.707(b) (1), andpossibly (b) (2), would probably result inno markers in such areas anyway.

Therefore, I see no need for the exceptionin § 192.707(d) (1).

Item- 5. * * *

Sincerely,-- W. L. WArsw,

Member ZPSSC.EXsoNs ios DISAPaovAL o IT= 4; Ma-

ING MAINs AND TANsmArssmore Lers GEoRaEW. W11MMy disapproval of Item & is centered on

the required use of the diamond symbol ini 192.707(e) (1), which I believe to be Inap-propriate. This symbol is taken from theU.S. Coast Guard regulation on aids to navi-gation, 33 CFR 66.10-Uniform State Water-way Alarkin. System, and s found in§ 66.10-5(c) (1). In my opinion, this symbol,read in the context of § 66.10-1(a) and§ 66.10-15(a) is to indicate "the presence ofeither natural or artificial obstructions orhazards" to navigation and the operatorshould' not approach the marker In order toread any wording on it. I believe the square orrectangular symbol found in § 66.10-5 (c) (4),which is for the purpose of providing "direc-tions or information" is the -appropriatesymbol to use.

The additional advantage to using thesquare or.rectangular-symbol is that a ma-Jority of the thousands of existing navigablewaterZay crossing signs could remain inplace, with minor modificatiobn, beyond theJanuary 1, 1980, date. If the diamond symbolis adopted, all existing signs must be re-placed with larger signs to provide room forthe diamond. These existing markers arelarge, expensive, long-life signs, installed onpiling, and, to the best of my knowledge, are

adequately performing their function 9fwarning boat or dredge operator. There isno evidence that damage to pipelines cross-Ing navigable waterways is a safety problem.therefore, the continued use of existing signswith an international orange border (rectan-gular or square), however modified to meetthe proposed wording Is practical and con-sistent with pipeline safety.

At the October 30-31, 1974, Technical Pipe-line Safety Standards Committee Meetingthe substance of the proposed I 192.707(o)was not discussed, but It was agreed thatOPS would consider If the proposed require-ments are compatible with the present U.Corps of Enginera requirements. All presentpipeline crossing markers on navigablewaterways were approved by the Corp3 andthe use of the rectangular symbol is muchmore compatible with these slgns than thediamond symbol.

Would you please reconsider the use ofthe diamond symbol and substitute for it arectangle or square one with the lettering(as proposed) Inside the ,quare or rectangle.

1T2As could be Issued as an amendment tothe letter ballot and voted on again by theCommittee.

The proposed 1 192.707(e) could be modi-fied as follows:

M1farkers at avof gable waterways. Each linemarker at a navigable wateway must havethe following characteristics:

(1) A sign, rectangular or square in shape.with a narrow strip along each edge, coloredinternational orange and the area betweenlettering on the sign and b6undary stripscolored white.

(2) Written on the sign in block style,black letters-(1) The word "Warning," "Caution," or

'Danger," followed by the words "Do NotAnchor or Dredge." and the words "Gas Pipe-line Crossing"; and

(ii) The name of" the operator and thetelephone number (including area code)where the operator can be reached at altimes.

(3) In overcast daylight, the orange borderIs visible and the writing required by para-graph (e) (2) (1) of this section is legible,from approaching or pass-ng vessels thatmay damage or interfere with the pipeline.

If the ballot Is changed as I have sug-gested. I would approve of the entire Item 4.

Effective date. Section 3(e) of the Nat-ural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 re-quires that standards and amendmentsthereto prescribed under the Act be ef-fective 30 days after the date of issu-ance unless the Secretary determinesgood cause exists for an earlier or latereffective date as a result of the periodreasonably necessary for compliance.Accordingly, the revised § 192.707 will be-come effective 30 days after issuance. Asprovided in § 192.107(a), this effectivedate is not relevant, however, to existingburied mains and to existing buriedtransmission lines at public road rail-road, and navigable waterway ro;sings.As discussed hereinabove, in view of theperiod reasonably necessary to- bringthose existing burled pipelines into com-pliance with the, revised requirements,§ 192.707(a) does not become applicableto them until January 1, 1978. -

In consideration of the foregoing,§ 192.707 of Title 49 of the Code of Fed-eral Regulations is revised to read asfollows, effective April 21, 1975:

13505

§ 192.707 Line markers for mains andtransmission lines.

(a) Buried pipelines. Except as pin-vided in paragraph (b) of this section, aline marker must be placed and main-tained as close as practical over eachburied main and transmission -line-

(1) At each crossing of a public road,railroad, and navigable waterway; and

(2) Wherever necessary to identify thelocation of the transmission line or mainto reduce the possibility of damage orinterference.However, until January 1, 1978, para-graphs (a) (1) and (a) (2) of this sec-tion do not apply to mains installed be-fore Apil 21, 1975, and until January 1,1978, paragraph (a) (1) of this section -does not apply to transmission lines in-stalled before April 21,1975.

(b) Exceptions for buried riezines.Line markers 4re not required for buriedmains and transmission lines--

(1) In Class 3 or Class 4 locations--(1) Where placement of a marker is

impractical; or(11) Where a program for preventing

interference with underground pipelinesIs established bylaw; or

(2) In the case of navigable waterwaycrossings, within 100 feet of a linemarker placed and maintained at thatwaterway in accordance with this sec-tion.

(c) Pipelines aboveground. Linemarkers must be placed and maintainedalong each section of a main and trans-mission line that is located abovegroundin an area accessible to the public. '

(d) Markers other than at navigablewaterways. The following must be writtenlegibly on a background of sharply con-trasting color on each line marker notplaced at a navigable waterway:

(1) The word "Warning," "Caution,"or "Danger" followed by the words "GasPipeline" all of which, except for markersin heavily developed urban areas, mustbe in letters at least one inch high withone-quarter inch stroke.

(2) The name of the operator and-thetelephone number (including area code)where the operator can be reached atall times.

(e) Markers at navigable waterways.Each line marker at a navigable water-wy mus have the following character-istics:

(1) A sign, rectangular in shape, witha narrow strip along each edge coloredinternational orange and the area be-tWeen lettering on the sign and boundarystrips colored white.

(2) Written on the sign in block style,blackletters-

(1) The word "Warning," "Caution,"or 'Danger," followed by the words "DoNot Anchor or Dredge" and the words"Gas Pipeline Crossing;" and

() The name of the operator and thetelephone number (including area 6ode)where the operator can be reached atall times.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 60--THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1975

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(3) In overcast daylight, the sign isvisible and the writing required by para-graph (e) (2) (1) of this section is legible,from approaching or passing vessels thatmay damage or interfere with the pipe-line.

(f) Existing markers. Line markersInstalled before April 21, 1975, which donot comply with paragraph (d) or (e) ofthis section may be used until January 1,1980.(Sec. 3, Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of1968 (49 USC 1672); § 1.58(d) of the regula-tions of the Ofice of the Secretary of Trans-portation (49 CFR 1.58(d)), and the re-delegation of authority to the Director, Officeof Pipeline Safety, set forth, In Appendix Ato Part 1 of the regulations of the Office ofthe Secretary of Transportation (49 CFRPart 1))

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March21, 1975.

JOSEPH C. CALDWELL,Director,

Office of Pipeline Safety.[FR Doc.75-7917 Filed 3-26-75;8:45 am]

CHAPTER X-INTERSTATE COMMERCECOMMISSION

SUBCHAPTER A-GENERAL RULES ANDREGULATIONS

[Corrected Revised SO No. 1207]PART 1033-CAR SERVICE

Lehigh Valley Railroad Company (RobertC. Haldeman, Trustee) Directed To Op-erate Certain Portions of Lehigh andNew England Railway CompanyAt a Session of the Interstate Com-

merce Commission, Division 3, held at itsoffice in Washington, D.C., on the 17thday of March, 1975.

It appearing, That the Lehigh and NewEngland Railway Company (LNE) hasnotified the Commission that, on or be-fore January 24, 1975, it will be unableto transport the traffic offered it becauseIts cash position makes continued opera-tion impossible; and that, accordingly,the LNE has placed its embargo No. 1-75against all traffic, effective January 7,1975;

It further appearing, That the Im-minent cessation of all transportationservices by the LNE constitutes an emer-gency situation such as that contem-plated by section 1(16) (b) of the Inter-state Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 1(16)),as amended, by section 601(e) of the Re-gional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973(P.L. 93-236); and that section author-izes the Commission under certain pre-scribed conditions, to direct a carrier orcarriers by rbAlroad to perform essentialtransportation services which anothercarrier is no longer able to perform;

It further appearing, That-the legis-lative history to section 1(16) (b) indi-cates that its purpose is to assure thecontinuance of essential rail service fora period of sixty days, or in extraor-dinary circumstances for an extendedperiod not to exceed 240 days, in theevent that a railroad is required to ceaseoperation under conditions described inthe Act; and that such authority was in-

tended as an interim emergency meas-ure and not as a permanent solution;

It further appearing, That In deter-mining whether the, LNE should be op-erated pursuant to the authority of sec-tion 1(16) (b) and in its planning there-fore, the Commission, consistent withCongressional intent and the provisionsof the Emergency Rail Services Act of1970 (45 U.S.C. 661), has coordinated Itsactivities with the Department of Trans-portation and has been in consultationwith representatives of the United StatesRailway Association, among others;

It further appearing, That the Com-mission has determined that based uponthe statute and the directives containedin the legislative history of section 1(16)(b) of the Act, the operation of the linesof the LNE is necessary and such opera-tion is in the public interest; that theCommission considered many factors,including but not limited to: the trans-portation requirements of the patrons ofthe LNE, the economic impact of a dis-continuance of service, the amount oforiginating and terminating traffic on in-dividual lines, transportation require-ments of connecting carriers, conditionof track, alternative carriers and trans-portation modes, and net operating rev-enues attributable to individual lines;and that, the Commission should directa carrier to operate over the lines of theLNE;

It further a~,pearing, That the LehighValley Railroad Company (Robert C.Haldeman, Trustee) (LV) should be di-rected to provide the services herein de-ternined to be essential in the publicinterest, which were formerly performedby the LNE, because, among other things,the LV's proximity to the lines of theLNE, the volume of the traffic LNE in-terchanges with the LV, its familiaritywith the operation of the LNE and itswillingness and ability to perform theservices required for shippers;

It.further appearing, That the per-formance of the operations directedherein will not substantially impair theLV's ability adequately to serve its ownpatrons or to meet its outstanding com-mon carrier obligations; that the per-formance of the directed operationshould not violate the provisions of theFederal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45U.S.C. 421);

It further appearing, That in light ofthe emergency situation which would re-sult from a cessation of all transporta.-tion service by the LNE, public noticeand hearings are impractical and notrequired by the procedures set forth insection 1(15) of the Act; that the publicinterest requires the continuation of op-eration over certain lines of the LNE bythe LV for a period of operation of 1501days as pro-ided by section 1(16) (b) ofthe Act; and that good cause exists formaking this order effective upon the dateserved;

It further appearing, That the LV ispresently a railroad in reorganizationunder section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act

1 Correction.

(11 U.S.C. 205) subject to the jurisdic-tion of the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:and that, accordingly, approval df saidcourt may be necessary for the Imple-mentation of this order; and

It further appearing, and the Divisionso finds, that this decision is not a majorFederal action significantly affecting thequality of the human environment withinthe meaning of the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1909;

It further appearing, and the Divisionso finds, that cessation of service by theLNE would have serious economic con-sequences not only to the patrons of theLNE- but also to the communities locatedwithin the area; and for good cause ap-pearing therefore:§ 1033.1207 Service Order No. 1207.

(a) Lehigh Valley Railroad Company(Robert C. Haldeman, Trustee) DirectedTo Operate Certain Portions of Lehighand New England Railway Company.It iz ordered, That the Lehigh Val-ley Railroad Company, debtor (RobertC. Haldeman, Trustee), be, and It ishereby directed to enter upon the rail-road properiles presently operated by theLehigh and New England Railway Com-pany, except the Tamaqua branch, ex-tending between Tamaqua, Pennsylvania,and Hauto, Pennsylvania, and to operatesuch railroad and facilities subject to anynecessary approval of the reorganizationcourt of the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,for the purpose of handling, routing, andmoving the traffic of the Lehigh and NowEngland Railway Company in accord-ance with the lawful instructions of ship-pers and consignees and in compliancewith the rules and regulations of theCommission, and subject to the ratesand charges prescribed In tariffs lawfullypublished and filed In accordance withlaw and applicable to freight traffiotransported over the lines of the Lehighand New England Railway Company;commence on or before 12:01 a.m., Janu-that such entry and operations shallary 24, 1975, and shall continue for aperiod of 150 days, unless such period isreduced by order of the Commission orunless further extended by order of theCommission, for cause shown,, for anadditional designated period; and that acertified copy of the order of the courtauthorizing the Lehigh Valley RailroadCompany, debtor, to perform the directedservice pursuant to the order of the Com-mission shall be filed with this Commis-sion, with appropriate reference to thisproceeding;

(b) It is further ordered, That theLehigh and New England Railway Com-pany shall, on the date of service of thisorder inform all persons who were givennotice of its embargo No. 1-75, that saidembargo shall no longer be applicable toservice over Its lines;

(c) It is further ordered, That theLehigh Valley Railroad Company, debt-or, shall (1) collect all revenues at-tributable to the handling, routing, andmovement of freight traffic Including allagents' and conductors' accounts and all

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 60-THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1975

13506