{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-74-0139","title":"Mr. Phillip V. Chabot — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1974-08-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-74-0139 concerning 195.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0139.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0139.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0139","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1974/g74-09-26_Chabot_195.1-wmX.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-74-0139\nSeptember 26, 1974\nMr. Phillip V. Chabot\nCity Hall\n126 Daniel Street\nPortsmouth, NH 03801\nDear Mr. Chabot:\nThis refers to your letter of July 8, 1974, in which you ask the\nviews of this office regarding the enactment of local laws to\ncontrol the operation of pipelines subject to 49 CFR Part 195.\nFirst, you ask our position on local ordinances of an\nenvironmental nature. Except to the extent 49 CFR Part 195 is\ndesigned to prevent discharges from pipelines, the safety\nstandards included therein are not for environmental protection\npurposes. Thus local requirements of an environmental nature\nwould most likely regulate subjects not covered by the\nrequirements of Part 195. So long as those local requirements\nwould not unduly burden interstate commerce, conflict with\nFederal laws or regulations, or be preempted by Federal\nenvironmental or other statutes, we see no problem with their\nenactment. The issue of whether certain New York regulations are\npreempted by the Transportation of Explosives Act (18 USC B31 et\nseq.) under which Part 195 is issued or conflict with Part 195 is\ncurrently before the United States District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York in 73 Div. 3177. This suit is\nbetween the Arco Pipe Line Company and the Public Service\nCommission of New York, among other litigants.\nSecondly, you ask our opinion on establishment of a local program\nto ensure compliance by carriers with the Federal standards in\nPart 195. The role that State and local governments may play in\nenforcing compliance with the Federal safety standards in Part\n195 is unclear. The Transportation of Explosives Act does not\nprovide for State enforcement measures as does the Natural Gas\nPipeline Safety Act of 1968 respecting gas pipeline operators.\nIf it is decided there is no Federal preemption of the safety\nregulations of interstate liquid carriers, then a State or local\ngovernment could enact requirements identical to Part 195 and\nenforce them as State law. With respect to gas pipeline safety,\nthis office has established a policy of permitting State agencies\nto serve as Federal agents for law enforcement purposes. A\nsimilar program has not been developed in the liquid pipeline\narea.\nFinally, you ask our views on local adoption of the Federal\nstandards coupled with additional requirements for environmental\npurposes. As previously stated, the validity of local adoption\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nand enforcement of Federal standards depends on how the question\nof Federal presumption is decided. As for adoption of additional\nrequirements of an environmental nature, those would probably be\nall right if they do not conflict with applicable Federal safety\nor environmental requirements. In this regard, a local\nrequirement which is more stringent with respect to a subject\nregulated by Part 195 is probably of doubtful validity.\nWe trust this discussion is helpful to you.\nSincerely,\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":2969}