{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-76-0106","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-76-0106","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1976-05-28","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-76-0106 concerning 192.11.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-76-0106.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-76-0106.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-76-0106","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1976/g76-05-28_Chiles_192.11-lmx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-76-0106\nMay 28, 1976\nHonorable Lawton Chiles\nUnited States Senate\nFederal Building\nLakeland, Florida 33801\nDear Senator Chiles:\nThis responds to year letter of May 11, 1976, to Mr. Cesar DeLeon, concerning a request by the National LP Gas\nAssociation of an interpretation of the applicability of the Federal Gas Pipeline safety Standards (49 CFR Part 192) to\npetroleum gas systems serving nine or less customers.\nBasically, the Association states that if the Federal regulations are applicable, they are inappropriate, and systems\nserving nine or less customers should be exempt from regulation. As indicated by the enclosed copy of a letter\nresponding to the Association, we have determined that the regulations apply in certain instances. At the same time,\nwe do not believe the Association has clearly shown why the systems should be exempt from regulation. We are\ncontinuing to consider the request, however, and have asked the Association to provide further substantiating\ninformation.\nWe appreciate your interest in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJames T. Curtis, Jr.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nUnited States Senate\nFederal Building\nLakeland, Florida 33801\nMay 11, 1976\nMr. Caesar DeLeon\nActing Director\nOffice of Pipeline Safety Operations\nDepartment of Transportation\n2100 Second Street, S. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20590\nDear Mr. DeLeon:\nI am in receipt of a letter addressed to you dated April 8, 1976, from the National LP-Gas Association in reference to a\nrequest for an interpretation of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.11 (a). My Special Assistant in Lakeland,\nFlorida, John Currie, talked with you briefly on this same matter a short time ago.\nThe gas industry has taken the position that its current safety regulations are more than adequate to meet the safety\ndemands required. Based on this position, the industry has asked, through interpretation, that installations serving nine\nor less accounts on a single tank be deleted from the requirements of the regulation. The industry feels that through\ninterpretation, rather than formally amending the regulation, the action can be handled expeditiously.\nI respectfully request your earliest consideration of this important matter.\nWith kind regards, I am\nSincerely,\nLawton Chiles\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nNational LP Gas Association\n1800 N. Kent Street\nArlington, Virginia\nApril 8, 1976\nMr. Caesar DeLeon\nActing Director\nOffice of Pipeline Safety Operations\nDepartment of Transportation\n2100 2nd Street, S. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20590\nDear Mr. DeLeon:\nThis letter is to request an interpretation of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192.11(a). That\nSection states, \"No operator may transport petroleum gas in a system that serves 10 or more customers, or in a\nsystem any portion of which is located in a public place (such as a highway), unless that system meets the\nrequirements of this part and NFPA Standards No. 58 and No. 59. In the event of a conflict, the requirements of this\npart prevail.\"\nThe problems created by Section 192.11(a) relate to the confusion and uncertainty arising from the, fact\nthat nowhere in Part 192 is the term \"system\" defined the very broad interpretation given to \"public place\", and the\nattempt to apply both the standards of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and NFPA Pamphlets No. 58 and No. 59.\nAs presently stated Section 192.11(a) could be interpreted as bringing within its jurisdiction thousands of propane\ninstallations which serve less than 9 or even only a single customer in a \"public Place\" with the resultant inordinate\ncost of compliance or inequitable and unconscionable liability. The specific issues raised are:\n1) By its very name the Natural Gas 'Pipeline Safety Act was intended for natural gas distribution\nsystems, and specifically facilities involving substantial distances and numbers of customers.\nNowhere in the history of the legislation or in the adoption of the regulations is there specific\nreference to the applicability of the Act to liquefied petroleum gas installations and particularly\nthose involving a minimal number of end users. Evidence of this is shown from regulatory\nrequirements contained in Part 192 which have no relation to LP-Gas distribution.\n2) The application of Part 192 to LP-Gas or propane installations serving 9 or less customers would\ncreate an intolerable burden of enforcement for the Materials Transportation Bureau, Office of\nPipeline Safety Operations, and render the regulations a nullity. This in turn could lead to\ncontempt for any and all safety standards, and thus the defeat of the commonly shared goal of\nachieving the maximum protection of life and property.\n3) The application of Part 192 to LP-Gas or propane installations serving of 9 or less customers\nwould contribute nothing to safety. Propane gas systems have been installed under the\nprovisions of the NFPA Pamphlets 58 and 59, and have enjoyed a remarkable safety record for\nmany years. In fact, we are unaware of any incident involving an LP-Gas installation which\nadherence to Pamphlets 58 and 59 would not have prevented, and particularly which would\nhave been prevented by the application of Part 192.\n4) The unnecessary expense or unreasonable liability created by Part 192.11(a) as presently stated\nwill force LP-Gas firms to sell their lines to the individual customers in order to avoid regulatory\njurisdiction. The authority of regulatory agencies does not extend to the customer if he is not\nengaged in the distribution of gas. The acquisition of LP-Gas installations serving 9 or less\ncustomers which would result from the continued application of Section 192.11(a), would place\nthe responsibility for maintaining a safe gas system under the control of those unfamiliar with\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nsafety standards and beyond any effective impartial supervision. Clearly this is contrary to the\ninterests of government, the LP-Gas industry, and the public.\nWe believe that these issues may best be resolved and the public most adequately served by a clarification\nto, or amendment of Section 192.11(a) to the effect that Part 192 does not apply liquefied petroleum gas installation\nor system serving 9 or less customers from one common source, and that such a system is subject to the application\nof NFPA Pamphlets 5B and 59.\nThis action would recognize that the typical LP-Gas installation is not subject to the jurisdiction of the\nNatural Gas Pipeline Safety Act; avoid the confusion created by attempting to apply two differing sets of safety\nstandards; unambiguously place the operation of LP-Gas Installations under proven standards for safety with which\nboth industry and governmental regulatory agencies are familiar, and which can realistically be enforced; and most\nimportantly prevent the divesting of such systems into the hands of individual customers and beyond the application\nof necessary safety standards.\nThis request by the National LP-Gas Association, briefs the principal problems raised by Section 192.11(a) in\nits present form. The Association will supply any additional information which may be required, and in addition\nrequests a conference between representatives of the Office of Pipeline Safety Operations and the Association for\nconsideration of this matter.\nSincerely,\nRichard H. Stock","truncated":false,"body_characters":7260}