{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-16-0008","title":"Maverick International, LTD — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2016-09-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-16-0008 response to Maverick International, LTD concerning 192.55.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-16-0008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-16-0008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-16-0008","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2016/PI_160008.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nofTransportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nSEP 2·s 2016\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nWashington DC 20590\nMr. Jerry Nelson\nMaverick International, LTD\n1650 Brockman\nP.O. Box 6600\nBeaumont, TX 77725-6600\nDear Mr. Speer:\nIn a letter to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) dated\nJuly18, 2016, you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 192. You stated an earlier revision\nof API 5L allowed manufacturers to upgrade a pipe's certification. You elaborated, stating that\nunder this earlier version of API 5L, a 42-inch pipe made by a mill as an X65 pipe could have\nbeen recertified as an X70 pipe; this could have been accomplished if all relevant characteristics\nlisted on the pipe mill certificate demonstrated that the pipe met specification requirements for\nX70 pipe. However, such a recertification process is not allowed under the new version of API\n5L.\nYou stated an attached 1992 PHMSA interpretation confirms the above recertification process.\nThe 1992 interpretation states that, a new pipe certified to Grade X42 of API 5L, could also meet\nthe requirements of Grade X52 pipe ifthe pipe manufacturer's certificate shows the pipe's\ncharacteristics demonstrate the pipe met the specification requirements for pipe Grade X52.\nFurther, PHMSA's response states if an operator were unable to obtain a recertification\ncertificate from the pipe's manufacturer, PHMSA would consider the pipe manufactured in\naccordance with the listed specification, (API 5L), if the operator did the following:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Shows the manufacturer's certified test reports to verify that the material quality and\nattributes, including the chemical composition, mechanical properties, and mill test\npressure, are in compliance with the specification requirements for pipe Grade X52;\nRemove from each piece of pipe the manufacturer's name or mark, the grade marking,\nand the API monogram;\nAdd to the markings that remain the operator's name or mark, as well as the appropriate\ngrade marking;\nIssue a certified test report verifying the pipe meets the requirements of pipe Grade X52;\nand\nMaintain records establishing the traceability of the pipe to the operator's and the\nmanufacturer's certified test reports.\nYou asked if the 1992 interpretation is still a valid and acceptable practice.\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<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nThe current incorporated by reference API SL, ( 4Sth Edition), does not allow recertification.\nSection 11.4 of this standard, (API SL Section 11.4), states marking of pipe to multiple grades is\npermitted only by agreement between the purchaser and the manufacturer for pipe of less than\nX42 grade, and also for pipe of between X42 and X60 grade ranges. However, multiple grade\nmarkings are not allowed for pipe of X60 and above grades.\nAlso, the pipe manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the pipe conforms to all requirements of\neach certified grade in API SL, Section 11.4.2. This includes ensuring the certification for all\npipe properties, both mechanical and chemical, as well as all pipe tests and inspections required\nfor the certified grade - including those tests and inspections for the pipe body and seam welds.\nAPI SL, Section 11.4.4 states that \"after delivery of the pipe, no remarking or recertification of\nthe pipe to a different grade or different PSL level (PSL 1 to PSL 2) shall be permitted.''\nTherefore, the 1992 interpretation is not valid for pipes being upgraded by someone who was not\nthe pipe manufacturer. In this case, your question is whether pipe of grade X6S can be\nrecertified to pipe of grade X70 by someone other than the pipe manufacturer. For the above\nreasons, the answer is no. Ifwe can be of further assistance, please contact Tewabe Asebe at\n202-366-SS23.\nSincerely,\nDirector, Office of Standards\nand Rulemaking\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<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFAX: 1+(409) 833-3123 MAVERICK INTERNATIONAL, LTD.\nTele: 1+(409) 833-7878 1650 Brockman rv P.O. Box 6600\nBeaumont, Texas 77725-6600 USA\nJuly 18, 2016\nPage 1 of 2\nUS Department of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE\nEast Building, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nFax: 202- 493-2311\nI am looking for a opinion on pipe question.\nIn the last revision of API5L, the specification now will not let\nmanufacturers upgrade the pipe. For example, mill has 42\" pipe that was\nMade by the mill as X65 pipe. All the chemical, physical, tensiles, etc show\nOn the mill certificate that the material meets the X70 specification also.\nMill will not recertify the pipe as they say API5L now prohibits them from\ndoing this.\nI located a old opinion in your files, Pl-92-0101 which addresses this same\nissue. My question is, it is acceptable practice for third party to remove the\nOriginal manufacturers name, monogram, etc, and then have third party\nCertify the pipe and put their name and control number on the material?\nThis is what this Opinion states, but I wanted to make sure this opinion was\nStit1 valid and acceptable practice.\nYou can call me at 800-541-6090 or fax me at the number below, or even\nEmail me a jerry.nelson@mavint.com\nMAVERICK INTERNATIONAL, LTD.\n409-833-7878 800-541-6090 FAX: 1+ 409 833 3123\nBRANDING THE WORLD WITH QUALITY PRODUCTS, COMPETITIVE PRICES AND SUPERIOR SERVICE\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n•\nPl-92-0101\nMarch 2S, 1992\nMr. Greg Muller\nCallier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc.\nSaint Louis, MO 63178\nDear Mr. Muller:\nWe have received by facsimile your letter March 17, 1992, in which you request that the Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS) verify that the proposed procedure in your letter would satisfy Department of Tra!lsportation\nregulatjons for certifying pipe APISLB/X42 to a higher test line pipe grade for a gas storage project. Section\n192.SS(a)( 1) states in part that new steel pipe is qualified for use under Part 192 of the gas pipeline safety\nregulations if it was manufactured in accordance with a listed specification. Relative to your request, the\napplicable listed specification is API Specification SL, 1988 Edition. We understand that your request applies\nto new pipe that has been certified to Grade X42 of AP! SL and that you have manufacturer's certificates\nverifying that it also meets the requirements of Grade XS2.The preferred means to recertify the pipe to Grade\nX52 is to request that the manufacturer appropriately recertify and remark the pipe. In that case, it would be\nunnecessary for OPS to furnish an opinion because the pipe would be manufactured in accordance with a listed\nspecification as required in§ 192.SS(a)(l).\nIf you are unable to obtain recertification from the manufacturer, OPS would consider that the pipe is\nmanufactured in accordance with a listed specification (API SL) if Callier does the following:\n1. 2. 3. 4. S. reports.\nReview the manufacturer's certified test reports to verify that the material quality and attributes,\nincluding the chemical composition, mechanical properties, and mill test pressure, are in compliance with the\nspecification requirements for Grade XS2.\nRemove from each piece of pipe the manufacturer's name or mark, the grade marking, and the API\nmonogram.\nAdd to the markings that remain Callier's name or mark and the appropriate grade marking.\nIssue a certified test report verifying that the pipe meets the requirements of Grade XS2.\nMaintain records establishing the traceability of the pipe to Callier's and the manufacturer's certified test\nYour Jetter proposes to use a control number marked on the pipe to.maintain traceability. A control number is\nnot a requirement for marking of pipe produced to API SL. However, a control number is essential for\ncomparing the pipe to the corresponding documentation and should be included in your marks on the pipe.If\nyou have any questions, please contact G. Joseph Wolf of this office at (202) 366-4S60.\nSincerely,\nCesar De Leon\nDirector, Regulatory Programs\nOffice of Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":8858}