{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-73-026","title":"Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1973-10-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-73-026 response to Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company concerning 192.111.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-026.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-026.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-73-026","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1973/PI73026.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nMr. Chas. H. Kent\nSupervising Engineer\nPanhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company\nP. O. Box 1348\nKansas City, MO 64141\nDear Mr. Kent:\nThis is in reply to your letter of September 4, 1973, concerning the casing of gas pipelines.\nYour interpretation of Section 192.111 is correct; however, it implies that the Federal regulations\nrequire casings under certain conditions. The Federal regulations do not require a pipeline be\nencased under roadbeds, railroad crossings, or highway crossings. They do require a lower\ndesign factor for the pipe where a crossing is made of a public road without a casing as is\nindicated in your interpretation of Section 192.111\nThe Natural gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (NGPSA) provides for Federal safety standards for\nfacilities utilized in the transportation of natural and other gases by pipeline in or affecting\ninterstate or foreign commerce. It created exclusive Federal safety authority over gas systems,\ngenerally described as interstate systems, which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal\nPower Commission under the Natural Gas Act. The Department also has an overall intrastate gas\nsystems covered by the NGPSA. A State may assume responsibility for enforcing safety\nstandards with respect to intrastate facilities through the filing of a certification under Section\n5(a), or may enter into an agreement with the Department to assist in the enforcement of the\nFederal safety standards. Under Section 3(b) of the NGPSA, a certifying State agency may adopt\nadditional, or more stringent, standards applicable to intrastate pipeline facilities, which are not\nincompatible with the Federal standards. Now where a State agency or local government requires\nthe installation of casing as a condition to obtaining a road crossing permit or a right-of-way, this\nwould not be considered incompatible with the Federal standards even though interstate pipeline\nfacilities are involved. This appears to be the case with the proposed legislation by the Ohio\nDepartment of transportation concerning highway crossings. Since these regulations are not\nwithin the context of the State gas regulations, there is not a conflict of jurisdiction with the\nFederal regulations, nor would there be a violation of Section 3(b) of the NGPSA.\nWe can appreciate your concern as to the effects of the proposed legislation. Your contention\nthat this legislation is more stringent than Section 192.111 is correct to the extent that the Federal\nregulations do not require the casing of pipelines under roadbeds, but this does not mean that\nthere are not situations where the use of casings would not be the best of alternative methods of\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\111\\73-10-03\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nachieving the desired degree of safety. It is for this reason that the Federal regulations are\nperformance type requirements that clearly state the objective to be achieved and leave the means\nto the person regulated.\nI trust that this information clarifies this matter.\nSincerely,\n/signed/\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\111\\73-10-03\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":3101}