Oklahoma Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act; modifying certain definition. Effective date.
SB355 amends the Oklahoma Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act by updating and expanding several statutory definitions used in the state’s one-call / underground utility damage prevention framework. The bill revises terms such as “excavate,” “excavator,” “operator,” “underground facility,” “preengineered project,” “permitted project,” “routine maintenance,” and adds definitions for “design” or “survey,” “watch and protect,” “pre-excavation meeting request,” and “large projects.” It also modernizes wording and statutory references, while keeping the core structure of the existing damage prevention law intact.
Substantively, the measure clarifies which activities are and are not considered excavation, including exclusions for certain agricultural work, routine maintenance, public agency projects, certified projects, permitted projects, cemetery grave openings, and some individual property work. It also refines how public agencies, contractors, and utility operators coordinate before construction begins, especially for larger or more complex projects, and it formalizes additional planning and notification concepts intended to reduce accidental strikes on underground lines and pipelines.
The bill would amend 63 O.S. 2021, Section 142.2, which contains the definitions section of the Oklahoma Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Act. Its main legal effect is to update the statutory vocabulary that governs excavation notice, utility locating, project coordination, and damage prevention obligations for excavators, public agencies, and underground facility operators. Because the bill is definitional rather than a broad policy rewrite, it would likely affect how existing notice and coordination requirements are interpreted and applied, especially for large projects and preconstruction planning.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a technical, noncontroversial update to an existing safety and utility coordination law. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, and the bill was later coauthored by Senator Frix, which suggests at least some legislative support. The overall tone of the legislation is administrative and preventative, focused on clarifying procedures rather than creating a new regulatory burden.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of concern, based on the text alone, could include whether the expanded definitions and added planning concepts impose additional coordination duties on contractors, public agencies, or utility operators, and whether the exclusions from “excavation” are sufficiently clear. However, there is no transcript or vote history showing active opposition, amendments, or debate over those issues.