{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-76-082","title":"OPSO Advisory Bulletin — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1976-03-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-76-082 response to OPSO Advisory Bulletin concerning 192.105, 192.111, 192.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-76-082.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-76-082.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-76-082","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1976/PI76082.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nOPSO Advisory Bulletin No. 76-3 March, 1976 Page 3\nGAS DIGEST, January 1976, \"Choosing the Proper Criterion for Protecting Bare Steel,\"\nJack Sharp, Elizabethtown Gas Co. PIPELINE & GAS JOURNAL, January 1976,\n\"Interstate Energy Completes Longest Insulated Oil Line,\" Dean Hale, Editor.\nAMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION MONTHLY, January 1976, \"National\nTransportation Safety Board and Pipeline Safety,\" Barry M. Sweedler, National\nTransportation Safety Board.\nGAS INDUSTRIES, Natural Gas Edition, February 1976, \"Columbia Gas Likes Butt\nFusion Joining With Polyethylene Pipe,\" Eugene J. Escolas, Columbia Gas Distribution\nCompanies.\nPIPE LINE INDUSTRY, January 1976, \"How Ruhrgas Cathodically Protects Pipe\nLines,\" Dipl. Phys. W.G. v. Baeckmann, Ruhrgas AG, Essen; \"Trans-Alaska Project\nMeets Tight Construction Schedule,\" Dave Deason, Construction Editor.\nOIL & GAS JOURNAL, January 12, 1976, \"Offshore Pipeline Report--Marine Pipeline\nFrontiers Disappear,\" Robert C. Ewing, Pipeline Editor; \"Vehicle Designed to Repair\nDeep-Sea Pipelines,\" Robert C. Ewing, Pipeline Editor.\nINTERPRETATIONS OF REGULATIONS\nRelates to 49 CFR, §192.105 and §192.111\nQuestion: In rebuilding a pipeline under the right-of-way of a public highway in a Class 1\nlocation, should a design factor of 0.50 or 0.60 be used in the design formula in 49 CFR\n192.105 for steel pipe?\nOPSO Interpretation:...\"Where steel pipe in a Class 1 location crosses without a casing, or\nmakes a parallel encroachment on, a highway right-of-way, Section 192.111(b)(2) requires\nthat a design factor of 0.60 or less be used.\n\"In rebuilding the pipeline, the use of a design factor of 0.60 would satisfy Section\n192.111(b)(2). The term 'or less' in Section 192.111(b) should not be construed as\nrequiring that a lower design factor, e.g., 0.50, be used in certain circumstances. Rather,\nthe term 'or less' permits the pipe, at the operator's discretion, to be designed for greater\nstrength than that provided by a design factor of 0.60.\"\nRelates to 49 CFR, §192.3\nDAL\\192\\3\\76-3\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQuestion: Under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, at what point in an LNG peak-\nshaving facility does jurisdiction begin?\nOPSO interpretation:...\"Except for the change in state, LNG is identical to natural gas and\nconsequently is within the definition of the term 'gas' in the Act (49 USC 1671(2)).\nPipeline facilities used in the transportation of gas are subject to the jurisdiction of the Act.\nThe 'transportation of gas' is defined in the Act as meaning 'the gathering, transmission or\ndistribution of gas by pipeline or its storage in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce'\n(49 USC 1671(3) emphasis added). Thus, an LNG peak-shaving facility is within the\nintended coverage of the term 'pipeline facilities' and, therefore, is in its entirety subject to\nthe jurisdiction of the Act.\"\nRelates to 49 CFR, §192.51\nQuestion: Is it the intent of Section 192.63 to include nipples and fittings used in meter\nsets--even those downstream of the regulator with operating pressure of 7\" W.C.?\nOPSO Interpretation:...\"As stated in Paragraph(a) of Section 192.63 and Section 192.51,\neach valve, fitting, pipe, or other component used in a pipeline to which Section 192.63\napplies must meet the marking requirements of that Section. The fittings in a meter set are\nexpressly covered by Section 192.63; as components of a pipeline, nipples are also subject\nto the marking requirements.\n\"Your question indicates some doubt about the jurisdiction of Part 192 over pipelines\ndownstream of a regulator. As indicated by the definition of 'service line' in Section 192.3,\nthe jurisdiction of Part 192 extends to (and includes) a customer meter or the connection\nto a customer's piping, whichever is farther downstream. This jurisdictional limit is\nirrespective of the location of a regulator or the gas pressure involved.\"\nRelates to 49 CFR, §192.63\nQuestion: At what point does a violation of Section 192.63 occur--when an unmarked\nfitting is purchased, when it is placed in warehouse stock, or when it is actually used in a\ngas system?\n(Continued)\nDAL\\192\\3\\76-3\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":4113}