{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-71-082","title":"Tennessee Public Service Comm — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1971-11-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-71-082 response to Tennessee Public Service Comm concerning 192.197.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-082.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-082.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-082","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1971/PI71082.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nMr. John Searcy\nEngineering Division\nTennessee Public Service Comm\nCordell Hull Building\nNashville, Tennessee 37219\nDear Mr. Searcy:\nThis letter id a further reply to your letter of October 5, 1971, in which you posed the question in\nparagraph 192.197(c)(2), it is stated that a service regulator and a monitoring regulator are\nrequired. Would you consider two (2) regulators in series both set at the same pressure as being a\nservice regulator and a monitoring regulator?\nIn answer to your question the requirements of 49 CFR 192.197(c)(2) will be met with two\nregulators in a series, but it will be necessary to have some difference in the setting of the two\nregulators to avoid operating difficulties. The sketches that you submitted of the various options\nopen for the design of a regulatory installation conforms to the intent of §192.197(c).\nSincerely,\n/signed/\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nActing Director\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\197\\71-11-11\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":981}