{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-72-048","title":"Florida Public Service Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1972-11-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-72-048 response to Florida Public Service Commission concerning 192.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-72-048.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-72-048.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-72-048","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1972/PI72048.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nNovember 7, 1972\nMr. Charles H. Batten\nDirector, Safety Department\nFlorida Public Service Commission\n700 South Adams Street\nTallahassee, Florida 32304\nDear Mr. Batten:\nThis is in response to your letter of October 16, 1972,\nconcerning jurisdiction over \"direct sale pipelines.\" As you apparently mean the term, and as used\nin this letter, \"direct sale pipeline\" means a pipeline, coming from an interstate gas pipeline, that\ndelivers gas to a customer purchasing gas for its own consumption. You ask whether direct sale\npipelines are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission under the Natural Gas\nAct and, if not, whether a State may adopt standards in addition to and more stringent than the\nminimum Federal safety standards.\nSection 3(b) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act provides that a State agency may adopt such\nadditional or more stringent standards for pipeline facilities and the transportation of gas not\nsubject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission under the Natural Gas Act as are not\nincompatible with the Federal standards. Your letter states that during the October school in\nOklahoma City, it was indicated that direct sale pipelines are not subject to the jurisdiction of the\nFederal Power Commission and are, therefore, subject to regulation by the State.\nThe view expressed at the school was consistent with opinions of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of\nAppeals. However, the Fifth Circuit was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in FPC vs.\nLouisiana Power and Light Company, and United Gas Pipeline Company vs. Louisiana Power and\nLight Company. (40 L.W. 4636, June 6, 1972).\nThe Supreme Court there held that the FPC has power to regulate curtailment of direct interstate\nsales of natural gas pursuant to its transportation jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. For\npurposes of Section 3(b) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, this means that direct sale\npipelines are subject to the jurisdiction of the FPC under the Natural Gas Act. Therefore, the\nview expressed at the school may no longer be considered correct.\ndal\\192.1-a\\1\\72-11-07\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nSince direct sale pipelines are subject to the jurisdiction of the FPC, the State may not adopt any\nstandards in addition to or more stringent than the Federal minimum standards for such lines, and\nthe second part of your question is moot.\nI trust this has clarified the matter for you.\nSincerely,\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ndal\\192.1-a\\1\\72-11-07\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":2509}