{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-72-055","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1972-12-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-72-055 response to Memo: Internal concerning 195.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-72-055.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-72-055.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-72-055","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1972/PI72055.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nMEMORANDUM\nDecember 18, 1972\nSUBJ: Jurisdiction in the Liquid Pipeline Area\nFROM: Mark Aron\nTO: Director, Office of Pipeline Safety\nYou have asked us to outline your jurisdiction\ngenerally in liquid pipeline area. You have not\nsupplied any particular facts or questions, and\nindividual cases will have to receive separate\nattention.\nThe pipeline regulations are issued under the authority\nof 18 U.S.C. 834, which provides that regulations\nissued by the Department under this section are\n\"binding upon all carriers engaged in interstate or\nforeign commerce which transport explosives and other\ndangerous articles by land, and upon all shippers\nmaking shipments of explosives and other dangerous\narticles via any carrier engaged in interstate or\nforeign commerce by land or water.\" (emphasis added).\nTherefore, the OPS regulations would apply if the\npipeline ran from one State to another State or if the\npipeline was part of a system which carried oil\nintended for out-of-State consumption.\nIf the pipeline is wholly within one State or if it is\nvery difficult to tell the origin or intended\ndestination of the oil, it is still possible to\ndetermine that OPS has jurisdiction. The important\nconsideration is that 18 U.S.C. 834 would apply to an\nintrastate pipeline if the carrier was engaged in\ninterstate operations. Thus, if you are dealing with\nan Esso pipeline which is wholly within one State, the\nregulations would probably apply because Esso engages\nin interstate commerce and has other interstate\npipelines. Most of your analysis should be focused on\nthe nature of the carrier because most pipeline\ncompanies are very large and unquestionably interstate.\nThis interpretation of the OPS jurisdiction is based\nupon the particular phrasing of 18 U.S.C. 834 in which\nthe phrase \"in interstate or foreign commerce\" limits\n\"carrier\" and not \"dangerous articles.\"\nAlso, this interpretation is based upon several\nopinions dated August 1, 1967, and March 11, 1971, that\ndal\\195\\1\\72-12-18\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nhave been given by the Office of the General Counsel\nwith respect to hazardous materials. (See attached).\nHazardous materials and liquid pipeline regulations\nboth are based upon 18 U.S.C. 834. The attached\nopinions also indicate that there is some basis in the\ncongressional history of this section and in the\nopinions of the I.C.C. for saying that intrastate\nshipments would be covered as long as the carrier is\nengaged in interstate commerce.\nIn summary, to determine if OPS has jurisdiction of a\npipeline, you should determine if the particular\npipeline crosses a State border or carries oil with an\nintended destination in another State. If your\ndetermination is negative, you can then go on to\ndetermine whether the carrier has other interstate\nactivities.\nThese are general guidelines, and individual cases will\nhave to be analyzed in light of their particular facts.\nMark Aron, TGC-20\nAttachments\ndal\\195\\1\\72-12-18\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":2942}