{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-77-0104","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-77-0104","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1977-02-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-77-0104 concerning 192.5.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-77-0104.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-77-0104.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-77-0104","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1977/g77-04-06_Barton_192.5-lmX.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-77-0104\nMr. Jim Barton\nWilliams Brothers Engineering Company\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74136\nMr. Barton said they needed an interim response by phone to their letter of February 25, 1977, since\nthey had to relay the information to Australia. I gave him the following guidance on each specific\nquestion:\na) Basis for the number of buildings for class 1 and 2 locations. How were the numbers 10 or less\nbuildings for class 1 and 46 or less buildings for class 2 locations arrived at?\nAnswer: This requirement was taken from the industry developed standard B31.8. we\ndo not know the basis for these numbers.\nb) What is the interpretation of “normal use” as used in defining class locations? What frequency\nof use of a building or defined outside area by more than 20 people would require the location\nto be classified3, once a day, week, month, year?\nAnswer: I told him that “normal use” should be interpreted to be based on the frequency\nof used of playgrounds, outdoor theaters, and recreation areas. I read him the interpretation in\nthe November 1977 Advisory Bulletin. I also told him that a cemetery had been interpreted not\nto require a class 3 location; while a church would require a class 3 location. I told him we\nwould send him a copy of the November 1976 Advisory Bulletin.\nc) What is the interpretation of “intended for human occupancy” as used in 192.5?\nAnswer: “Human Occupancy” probably meant dwelled in or inhabited or occupied by\npeople for a significant part of a day.\nI told him a more definitive interpretation for all three questions would follow.\nCesar DeLeon\nActing Director\nOffice of Pipeline Safety Operations","truncated":false,"body_characters":1639}