{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-09-0019","title":"New Mexico Public Regulation Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2010-03-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-09-0019 response to New Mexico Public Regulation Commission concerning 192.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0019.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0019.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-09-0019","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2009/PI-09-0019.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nu . S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMAR 2 2 2010\nMr. Joe M. Johnson\nActing Bureau Chief\nNew Mexico Public Regulation Commission\nPipeline Safety Bureau\n1120 Paseo de Peralta\nSanta Fe, New Mexico 87504\nDear Mr. Johnson:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nSeptember 15,2009, you requested an opinion/interpretation on whether the following pipelines\noperated by New Mexico Gas Company (NMGC) should be regulated as transmission pipelines\nor distribution pipelines (as described by New Mexico Public Regulation Commission):\n1. Animas Power Plant 6\" diameter - an intrastate natural gas pipeline that transports natural\ngas from a transmission line to a large volume customer (Animas Power Plant).\n2. Farmington (Bluffview) Power Plant 8\" diameter - an intrastate natural gas pipeline that\ntransports natural gas directly from a transmission line to large volume customers\n(Animas and Bluffview power plants).\n3. Tucumcari Mainline - an intrastate natural gas pipeline that transports natural gas directly\nfrom a transmission to distribution centers (Tucumcari Townplant, Northeast Regulator\nStation, and Baker Kelso Regulator Station). This pipeline is a continuation of the Clovis\nTransmission Line that transports natural gas from EI Paso Natural Gas Company's\nintrastate pipeline system to New Mexico Gas Company's Northeast Area distribution\ncenters, and is not downstream of a distribution center.\nNMGC has designated a valve at the Clovis Border Regulator Station as the end point of\nthe Clovis Transmission Line and the beginning of the Tucumcari and Cannon mainlines.\nThe Clovis Transmission line and the Tucumcari and Cannon mainlines all operate at 300\npsig. The Tucumcari Mainline runs approximately 62 miles from Mile Post 0 at the\nClovis Border Regulator Station to the Tucumcari Townplant distribution center.\n4. Cannon Mainline - an intrastate natural gas pipeline that transports natural gas directly\nfrom a transmission to distribution centers (Northwest Regulator Station, Mixon lane\nRegulator Station, Hayfield Farmers Regulator Station, 6084 Regulator Station, Port Air\nDairyman Regulator Station, Port Air Farmers Regulator Station, and Clovis Expansion\nRegulator Station). This pipeline is a continuation ofthe Clovis Transmission line that\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49 CFR\nParts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts\npresented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to\nhelp the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<>>\n\n2\ntransports natural gas from EI Paso Natural Gas Company's Intrastate pipeline system to\nNew Mexico Gas Company's Northeast Area distribution centers, and is not downstream\nof a distribution center.\n5. Northeast Distribution Mainline - an intrastate natural gas pipeline. The pipeline is a\nloop line that can be used to: (a) transports natural gas from EI Paso Natural Gas\nCompany's interstate pipeline via NMGC's Clovis Transmission line to the Tucumcari\nTownplant distribution center without going to the Clovis Border Regulator Station, or\n(b) transport natural gas to the Clovis Townplant distribution center via the Tucumcari\nMainline.\n6. Portales Mainline - an intrastate natural gas pipeline that transports natural gas from the\nClovis Transmission line, and Transwestern's interstate transmission line to distribution\ncenters (Portales Townplant, Grinder Regulator Station, Baxter Regulator Station,\nMidway Regulator Station, and Cameo Regulator Station). Pressure on the pipeline is\nregulated at 200 psig just downstream of the Transwestern interconnect at the Clovis\nTransmission line. There are no service lines on the Portales Mainline and the pipeline\nruns approximately 20 miles to the Portales Townplant distribution center.\nBased on the provided information, we agree with the Commission's determination that all of\nthe specified lines meet the definition of a transmission line. PHMSA' s responses concerning\neach of the specified lines are as follows:\n1. Regarding the Animas Power Plant 6\" line, we believe this line is a transmission line\nbecause under the first definition of a transmission line this line transports gas from a\ntransmission line to a large volume customer that is not downstream from a distribution\ncenter.\n2. Regarding the Farmington (Bluffview) Power plant 8\" line, we believe this line is a\ntransmission line because under the first definition of a transmission line this line\ntransports gas from a transmission line to a large volume customer that is not downstream\nfrom a distribution center.\n3. Regarding the Tucumcari Mainline, we do not consider a decrease in pressure to below\n20 percent SMYS at a transmission line to be a \"distribution center\" and lines\ndownstream of that point to be distribution lines - this would violate the intent of the\npipeline safety regulations. We consider a \"distribution center\" to be the point where gas\nenters piping used primarily to deliver gas to customers who purchase it for consumption\nas opposed to customers who purchase it for resale. Therefore, in our opinion, this line is\nan extension of the Clovis transmission line.\n4. Regarding the Cannon Mainline, we do not consider a decrease in pressure to below 20\npercent SMYS at a transmission line to be a \"distribution center\" and lines downstream\nof that point to be distribution lines - this would violate the intent of the pipeline safety\nregulations. We consider a \"distribution center\" to be the point where gas enters piping\nused primarily to deliver gas to customers who purchase it for consumption as opposed to\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations\n(49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the\nspecific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and\nare provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<>>\n\n3\ncustomers who purchase it for resale. Therefore, in our opinion, this line is an extension\nof the Clovis transmission line.\n5. Regarding the Northeast Distribution Mainline, we do not consider a decrease in pressure\nto below 20 percent SMYS at a transmission line to be a \"distribution center\" and lines\ndownstream of that point to be distribution lines - this would violate the intent of the\npipeline safety regulations. We consider a \"distribution center\" to be the point where gas\nenters piping used primarily to deliver gas to customers who purchase it for consumption\nas opposed to customers who purchase it for resale. Therefore, in our opinion, this line is\nan extension of the Clovis transmission line or the Tucumcari Mainline as described by\nPSB.\n6. Regarding the Portales Main line, we do not consider a decrease in pressure to below 20\npercent SMYS at a transmission line to be a \"distribution center\" and lines downstream\nof that point to be distribution lines - this would violate the intent of the pipeline safety\nregulations. We consider a \"distribution center\" to be the point where gas enters piping\nused primarily to deliver gas to customers who purchase it for consumption as opposed to\ncustomers who purchase it for resale. Therefore, in our opinion, this line is an extension\nof the Clovis Transmission line and Transwestern transmission line.\nFor your information, on September 25,2009, PHMSA received a letter from NMGC concerning\nyour interpretation request. PHMSA is providing NMGC with a copy of this letter and a copy of\nPHMSA's response to NMGC is enclosed. I hope that this information is helpful to you. If! can\nbe of further assistance, please contact me at (202) 366-4046.\nEnclosures\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations\n(49 eFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the\nspecific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and\nare provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMAR 2 2 2010\nMr. Thomas M. Domme\nVice President and General Counsel\nNew Mexico Gas Company\nP.O. Box 97500\nAlbuquerque, NM 87199-7500\nDear Mr. Domme:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nSeptember 25,2009, you expressed your views concerning a September 15,2009, request for\ninterpretation submitted to PHMSA by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission\n(Commission). You explained that New Mexico Gas Company (NMGC) was engaged in\nsettlement talks with the Commission concerning a matter that potentially involved the issues for\nwhich the Commission sought interpretation from PHMSA.\nTo the extent you questioned the procedural validity of the Commission's request, we find it was\nproperly submitted. PHMSA maintains open and continuous communications with our State\nregulatory partners at a variety of formal and informal levels. Note that requests for\ninterpretation are explanatory in nature and are intended only to apply existing laws and\nrequirements to a particular scenario presented by the requester. Interpretations do not create\nnew requirements not already in the pipeline safety laws and regulations.\nTo the extent you questioned the factual details set forth by the Commission in its request, please\nbe advised that PHMSA must assume the scenario presented by the requester is the one the\nrequester is interested in for purposes of obtaining information on how the regulations would\napply. PHMSA makes no attempt to investigate or otherwise verify the information provided by\nthe requester (in some cases, the scenarios presented to PHMSA by a requester may even be\nhypothetical). In preparing our response to the Commission, however, we were aware of the\ninformation you provided in your September 25,2009, letter, and as you know my staff had\ntelephone conversations with NMGC as well as the Commission. For your information, a copy\nofPHMSA's response to the Commission is enclosed with this letter.\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations (49 CFR\nParts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the specific facts\npresented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and are provided to\nhelp the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<>>\n\n2\nI hope that this information is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me\nat (202) 366-4046.\nSincerely,\n~\nJohn A. Gale\nDirector, Office of Regulations\nEnclosure\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety provides written clarifications of the Regulations\n(49 CFR Parts 190-199) in the form of interpretation letters. These letters reflect the agency's current application of the regulations to the\nspecific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification. Interpretations do not create legally-enforceable rights or obligations and\nare provided to help the public understand how to comply with the regulations.\n\n<<>>\n\nPHP Controlled Correspondence Sheet\nPHMSA Control Number: Action Office: PHP- 30\nPHP Control Number: 10-0008 Due Date: 12114/2009\nWriter: Thomas M. Domme\nSubject: : Re: New Mexico Gas Company's Position Concerning New\nMexico PSB September 15,2009 Request for Opinion/Interpretation of\nCertain Transmission and Distribution Pipelines\nAction: Opinion/Interpretation\nDate Action Action by\nDate Note Note by\nFor more information please contact:\nGlenda Marshall, Glenda.marshall@dot.gov\n\n<<>>\n\n15057974752 nmgco NMGCO 11:01:44a.m. 09-28-2009\n1 16\nNew Mexico\nGAS COMPANY\nP.O. Box 97500\nAlbuquerque, NM 87199-7500\nThomas M. Domme\nVice President & General Counsel\n505·697·3834 (direct)\n505·250.1419 (cell)\ntom.doollne@nmgco.com\nSEP 292009\nFAX MEMORANDUM\nTO:\nFROM:\nJeff Wiese\nUSDOTIPHMSA\nTom Domme\nNew Mexico Gas Company\nNumber of Pages (including this cover page): _....;6~_\nFAX No.: 202-366-3666\nDear Me. Wiese:\nAttached please find a copy of my letter sent to you dated September 25, 2009. The original was\nsent on Friday September 25th and should arrive via first class mail. Also attached is the letter\ndated September 15, 2009 from the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission's Pipeline\nSafety Bureau regarding request for opinion/interpretation, which was inadvertently left out of\nthe mailing.\nThank you.\nCc: A veIino Gutierrez (via emaiJ)\nJoe Johnson (via email)\n\n<<>>\n\n15057974752 nmgco\nNMGCO\n11 :01 :58 a.m. 09-28-2009\n2/6\nNew Mexico\nGAS COMPANY\nThomas M. [)onnne\nVice President & General Counsd\n505·697·.'834 (dimn\n505·250-1419 (cell)\nSeptember 25.2009\nJeff Wiese\nU.S Department of Transportation\nPipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\n1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nA velino Gutierrez\nNM Public Regulation Commission\nP.O. Box 1269\nSanta Fe, NM 87504-1269\nJoe Johnson\nPipeline Safety Bureau\nNM Public Regulation Commission\nP.O. Box 1269\nSanta Fe, NM 87504-1269\nRe: September 15,2009 New Mexico PSB request for opinion/interpretation.\nGentlemen,\nNew Mexico Gas Company (\"NMGC\") is in receipt of a September IS, 2009 request for\nopinion/interpretation (\"Request\") from Mr. Joe Johnson, Acting Bureau Chief of Pipeline\nSafety for the State of New Mexico (\"PSB\"). A copy of the Request is attached for your\nconvenience. The Request asks for an opinion/interpretation on whether six identified pipelines\noperated by NMGC are transmission or distribution pipelines and provides an interpretation of\n49 c.F.R. 192.3. Our initial review of the Request raises concerns and questions about the\nprocedural validity of the Request, and well as the scope and factual details of the Request, and\nwe will be preparing a detailed response to the Request. In short, in NMGC's view, the\ninterpretation of the regulation in the Request is incorrect in several respects, and fails to\nrecognize the provisions in the remainder of the definition as well as the history behind this\nissue. NMGC anticipates providing its response within ten days.\nBy way of brief background, this issue has been the focus of many discussions and meetings in\nNew Mexico between representatives of PSB and the gas utility since at least 1992. It was\nNMGC's understanding that these discussions were ongoing. As recently as 2007, a settlement\ndiscussion was held between PSB and the utility, and over the last two years additional\nconversations were held between the former PSB Bureau Chief, Bruno Carrara. and NMGC.\nNMGC anticipated and was told to anticipate a response from PSB directly to NMGC regarding\nPSB's latest position in these ongoing discussions. NMGC was never informed and was not\naware that PSB was intending to suomi! the Request, and NMGCs input into the form of the\nrequeo.;t wus not sought. NMGC remains of the opinion that discuso.;ion in New Mexico would he\nthe Illore fruitful avenue for rc ... olution and intends to approach PSB to altcmpt further\ndi ... cllssions on thc ... c i .... sllcs.\nP.O. Box 97500. Albuquerque, NM 87199-7500 • p: 888 NMGASCO • www.nmgco.com\n\n<<>>\n\nNMGCO 11:02:26a.m. 09-28-2009\n3/6\n15057974752 nmgco\nJeff Wiese, et al.\nSeptember 25,2009\nPage 2\nAs an aside, it is not clear, but it appears that the Request is being made under 49 C.F.R. 190.11\nfor informal guidance and interpretation. If so, then the Request is technically misdirected to the\nAssociate Administrator, and should be redirected or forwarded consistent with 190.11 (b) to the\nOffice of Pipeline Safety generally for an informal interpretation. Further, although not spelled\nout in 190.11 (b), as indicated above, NMGC intends to respond to the Request to provide a fuller\nand more detailed picture of the issue presented. To the extent leave is required to provide such\na response under 190.11(b), NMGC seeks such leave.\nFinally, because the Request could have far reaching implications throughout the State of New\nMexico, to other states, and even to other utilities, NMGC will be soliciting input from other gas\nutilities and the American Gas Association on this issue and will either incorporate these\npositions in its response, or solicit direct input by these entities.\ncc: Rick Backes\nGary Roybal\nRebecca Carter\nP.O. Box 97500 . Albuquerque, NM 87199·7500 p: 888 NMGASCO . www.nmgco.com\n\n<<>>\n\n15057974752 nmgco NMGCO 11 :02: 43a .m. 09-28-2009\n4 /6\nNEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION CONIMISSION\nCOMMISSIONERS\nDISTRICT I JASON MARKS\nDISTRICT 2 DAVID W. KING, VICE CHAIRMAN\nDISTRICT 3 JEROME D. BLOCK\nDISTRICT 4 CAROL K. SLOAN\nDISTRICT 5 SANDY JONES, CHAIRMAN\nDaniel Mayfield, Chief of Staff\nTransportation Diviswn\nPipeline Safety Bureau\n1120 Poseo de Peralta\nSanta Fe, New Mexico 87504\nMain Line (50S) 476-0298\nEmergency (505) 490-2375\nFax (505)827-4388\nSeptember 15, 2009\nMr. Jeff Wiese, Associate Administrator\nUS DOT /PHMSA/OPS\nPHH-l\n. 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nEast Bldg., 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nDear Mr. Wiese:\nI am writing to request an opinion/interpretation on whether the following pipelines operated by New\nMexico Gas Company (NMGC) are transmission or distribution pipelines:\n1) Animas Power Plant 6\"\n2) Farmington (Bluffview) Power Plant 8\"\n3) Tucumcari Mainline\n4) Cannon Mainline\n5} Northeast Distribution Mainline\n6) Portales Mainline\nNMGC claims that the pipelines are not transmission lines because they operate at less than 20% of\nspecified minimum yield strength.\n1\n\n<<>>\n\n15057974752 nmgco NMGCO 11:03:01 a.m. 09-28-2009\n5/6\nOur staff has reviewed the definition of transmission lines in 49 CFR § 192.3 and the preamble of the\nmost recent change In this regulation (RSPA-99.f)106;Amdt. 192-94) and concluded that the pipelines\nare transmission lines for the following reasons:\n1) The Animas Power Plant 6\" is an intrastate natural gas pipeline that transports natural gas from\na transmission line to a large volume customer (Animas Power Plant). It Is our opinion that the\npipeline is not downstream of a distributIon center. (See Drawing #1]\n2) The Farmington (Bluffview) Power Plant 8\" is an intrastate natural gas pipeline that transports\nnatural gas directly from a transmission line to large volume customers (Animas and Bluffview\npower plants). [See Drawing #1]\n3} The Tucumcari Mainline is an intrastate natural gas pipeline that transports natural gas directly\nfrom a transmission to distribution centers (Tucumcari Townplant, Northeast Regulator Station,\nand Baker Kelso Regulator Station). This pipeline is a continuation of the CloviS Transmission\nLine that transports natural gas from EI Paso Natural Gas Company's intrastate pipeline system\nto New Mexico Gas Company's Northeast Area distribution centers, and is not downstream of a\ndistribution center.\nNMGC has designated a valve at the Clovis Border Regulator Station as the end point of the\nClovis Transmission Line and the beginning of the Tucumcari and Cannon mainlines. (See\nPictures 1,2&3, and Drawing #2) The Clovis Transmission line and the Tucumcari and Cannon\nmainlines all operate at 300 psig. The Tucumcari Mainline runs approximately 62 miles from\nMile Post 0 at the Clovis Border Regulator Station to the Tucumcari Townplant distribution\ncenter. (See Drawing #3)\n4) The Cannon Mainline is an intrastate natural gas pipeline that transports natural gas directly\nfrom a transmission to distribution centers (Northwest Regulator Station, Mixon lane Regulator\nStation, Hayfield Farmers Regulator Station, 6084 Regulator Station, Port Air Dairyman\nRegulator Station, Port Alr Farmers Regulator Station, and Clovis Expansion Regulator Station).\nThis pipeline is a continuation of the Clovis Transmission Une that transports natural gas from EI\nPaso Natural Gas Company's Intrastate pipeline system to New Mexico Gas Company's\nNortheast Area distribution centers, and is not downstream of a distribution center. (See\nDrawing #2, and Pictures 1,2&3)\n5) The Northeast Distribution Mainline is an intrastate natural gas pipeline. The pipeline is a loop\nline that can be used to: (a) transports natural gas from EI Paso Natural Gas Company's\ninterstate pipeline via NMGC's Clovis Transmission Une to the Tucumcari Townplant\ndistribution center without going to the Clovis Border Regulator Station, or (b) transport natural\ngas to the Clovis Town plant distribution center via the Tucumcari Mainline. (See Drawing 1t4)\n2\n\n<<>>\n\n15057974752 nmgco NMGCO 11:03:29a.m. 09-28-2009\n6/6\n6} The Portales Mainline Is an intrastate natural gas pipeline that transports natural gas from the\nClovis Transmission line, and Transwestern's interstate transmissIon line to distribution centers\n(Portales Townplant, Grinder Regulator Station, Baxter Regulator Station, Midway Regulator\nStation, and Cameo Regulator Station). Pressure on the ptpeline is regulated at 200 psigjust\ndownstream of the Transwestern interconnect at the Clovis Transmission line. There are no\nservice lines on the Portales Mainline and the pipeline runs approximately 20 miles to the\nPortales Townplant distribution center.\nIf you have any questions or need further Information, please call me at (505) 490'()675.\nSincerely,\n~ t1JJl.\nJOa~ Johnson, A\nxc: Mr. Richard l. Backes, Vice President - Technical Services\nGary Roybal, DOT Compliance Manager for NMGC\nRebecca Carter, Regulatory Project Manager\n3\n\n<<>>\n\n-\n'\\\n;;\\ 't\n'\" !.\n..\n~\n..\n...\n!';\n...\n..\n\n<<>>\n\n~\\\ngJ\nI\n1..-....\n-\nj\nj\nj\nj\nj\nj\nj\nj\nj\nj\nj\n\n<<>>\n\n# 3\nTucumcari\n\n<<>>\n\n1\nI\n, i\n,\"-,j\n... ~\nI\n1\nI\n!'\ni_\"\n\"\".~_+'}''T'.'0,.'''.~ -j ..... [ :::J -i I\ni}\n\n<<>>\n\nI\nI\n(\\\n~\nii-'\nw\n'\" Q\n.,.\n'\" :}\nl\nr,I\n'\" 0:\n~.\n~\n\\'\"'\n~\n~\n\\\ni\n.~\\-\\\n\"'S':~\"C\n,,--\n\n<<>>\n\n\"i:\", ,,- @\n'i., \\'\nj 1.\n-\"\" ',,, <>\n1t'\n'\" '\"\n;r ~\n, '\\;\n'\" ;t\n;), V\\\n<.\n~.$~-\nJ~\n~\n.....\n~\nt·.\nt: '·\\~::ii,.\n',,'\n---.-,. t'\n\n<<>>\n\nBEFORE\nT°C/ois Distributi\nTucuncirí-\n\n<<>>\n\nTICTUre\nTucuncari Marline\n\n<<>>\n\nPicture # 3\nd. tonsa\ngifted siren\nCANNON\nClois Distributi\n\n<<>>\n\nNew Mexico\nGAS COMPANY\nThomas M. Domme\nVice President & General Counsel\n505-697-3834 (direct)\n505·250-1419 (eel!)\ntOnl.ciomme(jJ'nmgco.com\nSeptember 25, 2009\nOCT 0 1 2009\nJeff Wiese\nU.S Department of Transportation\nPipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nA velino Gutierrez\nNM Public Regulation Commission\nP.o. Box 1269\nSanta Fe, NM 87504-1269\nJoe Johnson\nPipeline Safety Bureau\nNM Public Regulation Commission\nP.O. Box 1269\nSanta Fe, NM 87504-1269\nRe: September 15,2009 New Mexico PSB request for opinion/interpretation.\nGentlemen,\nNew Mexico Gas Company (\"NMGC\") is in receipt of a September 15, 2009 request for\nopinion/interpretation (\"Request\") from Mr. Joe Johnson, Acting Bureau Chief of Pipeline\nSafety for the State of New Mexico (\"PSB\"). A copy of the Request is attached for your\nconvenience .. The Request asks for an opinion/interpretation on whether six identified pipelines\noperated by NMGC are transmission or distribution pipelines and provides an interpretation of\n49 c.F.R. 192.3. Our initial review of the Request raises concerns and questions about the\nprocedural validity of the Request, and well as the scope and factual details of the Request, and\nwe will be preparing a detailed response to the Request. In short, in NMGC's view, the\ninterpretation of the regulation in the Request is incorrect in several respects, and fails to\nrecognize the provisions in the remainder of the definition as well as the history behind this\nissue. NMGC anticipates providing its response within ten days.\nBy way of brief background, this issue has been the focus of many discussions and meetings in\nNew Mexico between representatives of PSB and .the gas utility since at least 1992. It was\nNMGC's understanding that these discussions were ongoing. As recently as 2007, a settlement\ndiscussion was held between PSB and the utility, and over the last two years additional\nconversations were held between the former PSB Bureau Chief, Bruno Carrara, and NMGC.\nNMGC anticipated and was told to anticipate a response from PSB directly to NMGC regarding\nPSB's latest position in these ongoing discussions. NMGC was never informed and was not\naware that PSB was intending to submit the Request, and NMGC's input into the form of the\nrequest was not sought. NMGC remains of the opinion that discussion in New Mexico would be\nthe more fruitful avenue for resolution and intends to approach PSB to attempt further\ndiscussions on these issues.\nP.O. Box 97500 * Albuquerque, NM 87199-7500 ., p: 888 NMGASCO • www.nmgco.com\n\n<<>>\n\nJeff Wiese, et al.\nSeptember 25,2009\nPage 2\nAs an aside, it is not clear, but it appears that the Request is being made under 49 C.F.R. 190.11\nfor informal guidance and interpretation. If so, then the Request is technically misdirected to the\nAssociate Administrator, and should be redirected or forwarded consistent with 190.11 (b) to the\nOffice of Pipeline Safety generally for an informal interpretation. Further, although not spelled\nout in 190.l1(b), as indicated above, NMGC intends to respond to the Request to provide a fuller\nand more detailed picture of the issue presented. To the extent leave is required to provide such\na response under 190.11 (b), NMGC seeks such leave.\nFinally, because the Request could have far reaching implications throughout the State of New\nMexico, to other states, and even to other utilities, NMGC will be soliciting input from other gas\nutilities and the American Gas Association on this issue and will either incorporate these\npositions in its response, or solicit direct input by these entities .\n• u\"-.....n. Domme\nVice President and General Counsel\ncc: Rick Backes\nGary Roybal\nRebecca Carter\nP.O. Box 97500' Albuquerque, NM 87199-7500 p: 888 NMGASCO\" www.nmgco.com\n\n<<>>\n\nNew Mexico\nGAS COMPANY\nThomas M. Domme\nVice President & General Counsel\n505-697-3834 (direct)\n505-250-1419 (cell)\ntnrn.dommc(ai nmgco_col1l\nOCT 132009\nOctober 12,2009\nVIA FEDERAL EXPRESS\nMr. Jeffrey Wiese\nU.S Department of Transportation\nPipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMr. A velino Gutierrez\nNM Public Regulation Commission\nP.O. Box 1269\nSanta Fe, NM 87504-1269\nMr. Joe Johnson\nPipeline Safety Bureau\nNM Public Regulation Commission\nP.O. Box 1269\nSanta Fe, NM 87504-1269\nRe: New Mexico Gas Company's Position Concerning New Mexico\nPSB September 15, 2009 Request for Opinion/Interpretation of\nCertain Transmission and Distribution Pipelines\nGentlemen:\nNew Mexico Gas Company (\"NMGC\") is in receipt of correspondence dated September 15,\n2009 from Joe M. Johnson, acting Bureau Chief of the New Mexico Pipeline Safety Bureau\n(\"PSB\"). As indicated in our initial correspondence to you on September 25, 2009, NMGC\nsubmits this more detailed response to the PSB's September 15, 2009 letter in order to set forth\nmore facts and to provide NMGC's position with regard to these issues.\nOPERATIONAL BACKGROUND:\nNMGC is a local distribution company which provides service to approximately 500,000\ncustomers throughout the State of New Mexico, and operates approximately 1502 miles of\ntransmission lines and 13060 miles of distribution lines. NMGC purchased these gas assets from\nPublic Service Company of New Mexico (\"PNM\") on January 30, 2009. At issue here are six\nseparate distribution lines, which PSB seeks to have redesignated as transmission lines.\nAttached as Attachment A, is a map diagramming four of the lines in dispute: Tucumcari\nmainline, Northeast distribution mainline, Cannon mainline, and Portales mainline (\"Clovis Area\nLines\"). Also shown on Attachment A is the Clovis mainline which is not part of this dispute.\nAttached as Attachment B is a diagram depicting a representation of the other two lines in\nP.O. Box 97500. Albuquerque, NM 87199-7500 • p: 888 NMGASCO • www.nmgco.com\n\n<<>>\n\nWiese, et al.\nOctober 12, 2009\nPage 20f9\ndispute, the Animas Power Plant line, and the Farmington Bluffview Power Plant line\n(\"Farmington Area Lines\").\nClovis Area Lines (Attachment A)\nThe five pipeline segments shown on Attachment A distribute gas to the eastern portion of\nNMGC's service area. As indicated on the map, EI Paso Natural Gas (\"EPNG\") and\nTranswestern Gas Company (\"TWO') deliver gas to NMGC's system at two locations in this area,\nthe Texico Border Station (\"Clovis City Gate\") and the TW Border Station (\"Portales City\nGate\"). NMGC takes custody of the gas at these locations and delivers it to end-users. NMGC\nconsiders the Clovis City Gate, and Portales City Gates as \"distribution centers\" for this service\narea.\nClovis City Gate: EPNG delivers gas to the Clovis City Gate at a pressure of approximately 300\npsig. The pressure is reduced at the EPNG Border Station, located in Texas, from approximately\n790 psig to approximately 300 psig for delivery into the Clovis City Gate, located in New\nMexico.\nClovis ML: The Clovis ML, consisting of 8.38 miles of 8-inch steel pipeline and 8.28\nmiles of IO-inch steel pipe, delivers gas from the Clovis City Gate to the Clovis Border\nStation. See Attachment C for a schematic of the Clovis Border Station. This segment of\npipeline is downstream of the Clovis City Gate, is already designated a transmission line\nand is not subject to the request for interpretation contained in the PSB letter.\nTucumcari ML: The Tucumcari ML has an MAOP of 300 psig and is comprised of 46.6\nmiles of 6-inch steel pipe and 15.6 miles of 8-inch steel pipe. The Tucumcari ML\ndelivers gas to 20 service meters connected directly to the pipeline and to the community\nof Tucumcari. This segment of pipeline is downstream of the Clovis City Gate.\nNortheast Distribution ML: The Northeast Distribution ML has an MAOP of 300 psig\nand is comprised of 15.9 miles of 4-inch steel pipe and 8.3 miles of 6-inch steel pipe.\nThe Northeast Distribution System is connected to the Clovis ML, east of the Clovis\nBorder Station and ties into the Tucumcari ML. This segment of pipeline delivers gas to\n43 service meters connected directly to the pipeline. This segment of pipeline is\ndownstream of the Clovis City Gate.\nCannon ML: The Cannon ML has an MAOP of 300 psig and is comprised of 8.7 miles\nof 6-inch steel pipe and 1.1 miles of 8-inch steel pipe. This segment of pipeline delivers\ngas to 26 service meters that are directly connected to the pipeline and to Cannon Air\nForce Base. This segment of pipeline is downstream of the Clovis City Gate.\nPortales City Gate: TW delivers gas to the Portales City Gate at a pressure of approximately\n1000 psig. The pressure is reduced to approximately 300 psig for delivery into the Clovis ML\nand cut to 200 psig for delivery into the Portales ML. The Portales City Gate is the point where\nNMGC takes custody of the gas for distribution to the end-user.\nP.O. Box 97500. Albuquerque, NM 87199-7500 • p: 888 NMGASCO • www.nmgco.com\n\n<<>>\n\nWiese, et al.\nOctober 12, 2009\nPage 3 of9\nPortales ML: The Portales ML has an MAOP of 200 psig and is comprised of 2.25 miles\nof 5-inch steel pipe, 2.95 miles of 6-inch steel pipe and 6.7 miles of 8-inch steel pipe.\nThe Portales ML begins at the Portales City Gate and delivers gas to the community of\nPortales.\nFarmington Area Lines (Attachment B)\nBlanco Hub and Carlton Regulator Station: NMGC takes custody and transfer of gas into its\nsystem at the Blanco Hub. Gas is then transported through the Crouch Mesa Transmission Line\nto the Ronald Regan Regulator Station where the pressure is reduced and is delivered to the\nBluffview ML. The Carlton Regulator Station comes off the Bluffview ML and drops the\npressure to the Animas ML and the Farmington High Pressure Distribution Line. Custody of the\ngas entering this system is at the Blanco Hub.\nFarmington Power Plant Pipeline (Bluffview ML): The Bluffview ML has an MAOP of\n770 psig and is comprised of approximately 3.77 miles of 8-inch steel pipe. NMGC takes\ncustody of gas at the Blanco Hub, which ties into the Crouch Mesa Transmission line.\nThe Bluffview ML is connected to the Crouch Mesa Transmission Line, which has an\nMAOP of 1220 psig. The pressure is reduced to 705 psig at the Ronald Reagan\nRegulator Station before entering the Bluffview pipeline. This segment of pipeline\ndelivers gas to Animas ML, Farmington High Pressure Distribution Line and to the\nFarmington Power Plant. This line is downstream of a distribution center (Blanco Hub),\nis not dedicated for the sole use of the Farmington Power Plant, and is available to deliver\ngas to other end-users.\nAnimas ML: The Animas ML has an MAOP of 600 psig and is comprised of\napproximately 0.56 miles of 6-inch steel pipe. The Animas ML is connected to the\nBluffview ML. The pressure is reduced from 705 psig to 445 psig at the Carlton\nRegulator Station before entering the Animas pipeline. This segment of pipeline delivers\ngas to the Animas Power Plant. Additionally, gas is delivered into the Farmington high\nPressure Distribution Line at the Carlton Regulator Station at a pressure of 200 psig.\nThis line is downstream of the Blanco Hub distribution center and the Carlton Regulator\nStation distribution center, is not dedicated for the sole use of the Animas Power Plant\nand is available to deliver gas to other end-users.\nRELEVANT CHRONOLOGY REGARDING CLASSIFICATION ISSUES\nBy way of background, NMGC sets forth this chronology of events which are relevant to\nconsideration of these issues:\n• August 18-20, 1992 - Mr. Joe Johnson, Pipeline Safety Inspector, performs an annual\ncompliance inspection for the Clovis and Portales, N.M. townplants.\nP.O. Box 97500. Albuquerque, NM 87199-7500 • p: 888 NMGASCO • www.nmgco.com\n\n<<>>\n\nWiese, et al.\nOctober 12, 2009\nPage 4 of9\n• October 9, 1992 - PSB issues a Notice of Probable Violation (\"NPV\"), attached as\nAttachment D, in which it cited Gas Company of New Mexico, a division of Public\nService Company of New Mexico (\"Gas Company\"), and NMGC's predecessor,\nregarding the Clovis ML and Tucumcari ML, citing non-compliance with § 192.705,\nTransmission Lines; Patrolling and § 192.706 (B), Transmission Lines: Leakage Surveys,\nfor not operating the Clovis ML and the Tucumcari ML as transmission lines.\n• November 12, 1992 - The Gas Company responds to PSB acknowledging that the Clovis\nML is operated at above 20% SMYS and, therefore, is a transmission line. The Gas\nCompany, however, did not agree that the Tucumcari ML was a transmission line and\nsubmitted the following response:\n\"The Clovisffucumcari mainline which is a 127 mile segment of\npipeline has historically been designated as distribution pipeline using\nthe definition that it did not transport gas from a gathering line or\nstorage facility to a distribution center or storage facility. Designated\nas such, annual patrol and leakage survey was performed in\naccordance with Sections 192.721 and 192.723 respectively.\nGCNM has reviewed the System Certifications for the\nClovisffucumcari mainlines and are in agreement that the Clovis\npipeline segment which is operating at above 20% SMYS shall be\npatrolled and leak surveyed utilizing the Section 192.705 and\n192. 706(B) as applicable to this segment. This segment of pipeline is\nscheduled to be patrolled and leak surveyed between November 16\nthru November 30, 1992 and in the future shall be patrolled on a\nquarterly basis and leak surveyed annually.\"\n• January 21, 1993 - Albino O. Zuniga, P.E. and Pipeline Safety Engineer and Rey S.\nMedina, Director acknowledged and agreed with Gas Company of New Mexico's\nconclusion that the Clovis ML was a transmission line because it operated above 20%\nSMYS. They responded as follows:\n\"In regard to the Clovisffucumcari area pipelines and the probable\nviolations with Section 192.705 and Section 192.706(B) cited in the same\nletter, we agree with your conclusion that the Clovis pipeline segment\noperating above 20% SMYS is a transmission line.\"\n• Between 1992 and 2007, PSB conducted several Compliance Inspections regarding the\noperating status of the Tucumcari ML, Portales ML, Cannon ML, Northeastern\nDistribution ML and Clovis ML. Except for the Compliance Inspection conducted in\n2007, all other Compliance Inspections since 1992 accepted the operating status (as\ndistribution mains) of the Tucumcari ML, Portales ML, Cannon ML and the Northeast\nML. It should be noted that the same inspector that conducted the 1992 Compliance\nInspection and several subsequent Compliance Inspections is also the same PSB\nP.O. Box 97500\" Albuquerque, NM 87199-7500 ., p: 888 NMGASCO .. www.nmgco.com\n\n<<>>\n\nWiese, et al.\nOctober 12, 2009\nPage 5 of9\nInspector that conducted the 2007 Specialized Inspection. PSB has not identified nor\naddressed any safety concerns or considerations, changes in regulation, policy or\nconditions of operations that warrant a change in operating status for these pipelines.\nHowever, PSB apparently lifted the violation for the Tucumcari ML since the issue was\nnot mentioned as a NPV for the next 14 years.\n• May 29-30, 2007 - Joe Johnson, PSB Inspector, performs a Specialized Audit of the\nTucumcari ML.\n• July 2, 2007 - Mr. Bruno Carrara, P.E., PSB Bureau ChieflPipeline Safety Engineer,\nissues a NPV. PSB cites the following probable violation:\n\"Item I -§192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys. Leakage surveys\nof a transmission line must be conducted at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year.\nThe Tucumcari Mainline is a transmission line as defined in Part 192.\nRecords reviewed indicate that the Tucumcari Mainline was last surveyed\nfor leakage on December 10,2002 and November 17,2003.\"\n• August 3, 2007 -PNM responds to the NPV and disputes the probable violation. PNM\nasserts that the Tucumcari ML is a distribution line and is not a transmission line as\ndefined in §49 CFR 192.3.\n• October 4, 2007 - Bruno Carrara, P.E., PSB Bureau ChieflPipeline Safety Engineer,\nresponds that on September 17, 2007, Mr. Joe Johnson met with certain PNM personnel\nin the Clovis area and asserted that the Tucumcari ML was not downstream of the\n\"distribution center\". Additionally, Mr. Johnson asserted that the Cannon ML, Portales\nML and the Northeast Distribution ML were also transmission lines.\n• November 9, 2007 - In accordance with PSB's correspondence dated October 4, 2007,\nPNM scheduled and conducted a compliance/settlement conference with PSB. PSB has\nhad no further written correspondence with PNM or its successor, NMGC.\n• June 12, 2008 - At the request of PSB, PNM provides operations information regarding\nthe Tucumcari ML, Cannon ML, Portales ML and the Northeast Distribution ML.\n• September 10-11, 2008 - Joe Johnson, PSB Inspector, conducts a Specialized\nCompliance Inspection of the Farmington, NM townplant.\n• October 2, 2008 - Bruno Carrara, P.E., PSB Bureau ChieflPipeline Safety Engineer,\nissues a NPV for the Farmington townplant. PSB cites non-compliance with § 192.705,\nTransmission Lines; Patrolling and § 192","truncated":true,"body_characters":70133}