Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Areas Of Notification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews proposed rules on areas of notification and membership termination; stakeholders flag abandoned facilities as concern
Summary
Staff presented proposed regulatory language on operators' areas of notification and membership termination. Dig Alert, Southern California Contractors Association and other commenters said the board should avoid creating administrative burdens and stressed the need to identify when facilities remain in the ground after a membership change.
The board discussed proposed regulations governing operators’ geospatial areas of notification (shapefiles) and process for membership termination. Staff said the DigSafe Act requires operators of subsurface installations to be members of a regional notification center and that questions had arisen when entities change or terminate membership and whether buried facilities remain in the ground and who will respond to locates.
Three written comments were filed during the informal 20-day comment period. Dig Alert, Southern California Contractors Association (SCCA), and a technology vendor offered generally supportive comments but raised concerns about terminology (for example, “geospatial polygon”) and about administrative burdens on RNCs whose systems are not readily set up to export or manage area-of-notification changes.
Member discussion focused on abandoned or still-buried facilities. Several board members said the staff proposal should ensure the board and RNCs can identify whether a membership change leaves buried facilities in place that are not being marked. Member Charlene suggested a simple “flag” or checkbox when a member alters their area of notification: if facilities remain in the ground and will no longer be marked, staff should be notified for follow‑up.
Public comment: Todd Blumstein of the Southern California Contractors Association spoke via webinar and reiterated concerns that requiring a reason for every shapefile change could cause confusion and excavation delays; he urged further coordination with the RNCs.
What’s next: Staff asked the board for direction on whether to keep, remove or amend portions of the proposed language; board members directed staff to work with the RNCs to develop a compromise that captures those scenarios where facilities will remain in place and are effectively abandoned, without imposing unnecessary process burdens on routine shapefile corrections.
Ending: Staff will return with refined language after consultation with the regional notification centers and stakeholder groups.
