49 C.F.R. § 192.613

Continuing surveillance

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Each operator shall have a procedure for continuing surveillance of its facilities to determine and take appropriate action concerning changes in class location, failures, leakage history, corrosion, substantial changes in cathodic protection requirements, and other unusual operating and maintenance conditions.

(b) If a segment of pipeline is determined to be in unsatisfactory condition but no immediate hazard exists, the operator shall initiate a program to recondition or phase out the segment involved, or, if the segment cannot be reconditioned or phased out, reduce the maximum allowable operating pressure in accordance with § 192.619 (a) and (b).

(c) Following an extreme weather event or natural disaster that has the likelihood of damage to pipeline facilities by the scouring or movement of the soil surrounding the pipeline or movement of the pipeline, such as a named tropical storm or hurricane; a flood that exceeds the river, shoreline, or creek high-water banks in the area of the pipeline; a landslide in the area of the pipeline; or an earthquake in the area of the pipeline, an operator must inspect all potentially affected onshore transmission pipeline facilities to detect conditions that could adversely affect the safe operation of that pipeline.

(1) An operator must assess the nature of the event and the physical characteristics, operating conditions, location, and prior history of the affected pipeline in determining the appropriate method for performing the initial inspection to determine the extent of any damage and the need for the additional assessments required under this paragraph (c)(1).

(2) An operator must commence the inspection required by paragraph (c) of this section within 72 hours after the point in time when the operator reasonably determines that the affected area can be safely accessed by personnel and equipment, and the personnel and equipment required to perform the inspection as determined by paragraph (c)(1) of this section are available. If an operator is unable to commence the inspection due to the unavailability of personnel or equipment, the operator must notify the appropriate PHMSA Region Director as soon as practicable.

(3) An operator must take prompt and appropriate remedial action to ensure the safe operation of a pipeline based on the information obtained as a result of performing the inspection required by paragraph (c) of this section. Such actions might include, but are not limited to:

(i) Reducing the operating pressure or shutting down the pipeline;

(ii) Modifying, repairing, or replacing any damaged pipeline facilities;

(iii) Preventing, mitigating, or eliminating any unsafe conditions in the pipeline right-of-way;

(iv) Performing additional patrols, surveys, tests, or inspections;

(v) Implementing emergency response activities with Federal, State, or local personnel; or

(vi) Notifying affected communities of the steps that can be taken to ensure public safety.

[35 FR 13257, Aug. 19, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 192-132, 87 FR 52270, Aug. 24, 2022]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1997–2020 · leading case: Town of Montezuma v. Downs, 685 N.E.2d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Town of Montezuma v. Downs, 685 N.E.2d 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “459 (Exposed Pipeline Regulation), which requires pipeline operators to inspect for corrosion any time a buried pipeline is exposed, and 49 CFR §§ 192.613 and 192.614(a) (Surveillance and Excavation Regulations), which require the utility to have procedures for surveillance of…”

Hynes v. Energy West, Inc., 211 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2000). “In their Complaint, the Hynes specifically alleged that the unsafe condition of the pipeline violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.613 and 192.703 and that the improper odorization violated 49 C.”

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Haas, 341 F. Supp. 3d 607 (D. Maryland 2018). “See 49 C.F.R. § 192.613 (a) (2018). Columbia Gas maintains that it uses aerial patrols to meet this requirement because such patrols are more accurate than other forms of surveillance.”

Columbia Gas Transmission v. Janet Haas (4th Cir. 2020). “See 49 C.F.R. § 192.613 (a). Assuming that the maple tree somehow inhibits the aerial surveys of that section of the pipeline, however, the presence of the tree does not, as the district court ruled, unreasonably interfere with Columbia’s easement rights.”

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Haas (D. Maryland 2019). “See 49 C.F.R. § 192.613 (a) (2018). There are a variety of ways in which Columbia tests for gas leaks and the structural integrity of its pipelines.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.