{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-77-017","title":"Williams Brothers Engineering Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1977-07-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-77-017 response to Williams Brothers Engineering Company concerning 192.5.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-77-017.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-77-017.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-77-017","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1977/PI77017.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJul 5 1977\nMr. Leo R. Kenyon\nWilliams Brothers Engineering Company\n6600 S. Yale Avenue\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74136\nDear Mr. Kenyon:\nThis is in response to your letter of February 25, 1977, in which you requested our definition and\nadvice on three questions concerning Section 192.5 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The\nfollowing information is furnished in answer to your questions:\na. A discussion of the reasons for determining 10 or less buildings for Class 1 location and\n46 or less buildings for Class 2 location are contained in Notice 70-4, Docket No. OPS-\n3D (enclosed). The study which formed the basis for these determinations is also\nenclosed.\nb. \"Normal use\" is interpreted to mean the activity that is ordinarily engaged in on the\npremises. The frequency of normal use is a factor to consider in determining whether the\nuse of a building or outside area creates a risk which is similar enough to the risk to the\nareas mentioned in §192.5(d)(2)(ii) to warrant application of Class 3 standards.\nc Intended for \"human occupancy\" is interpreted to mean that the building concerned is used\nfor a purpose involving the presence of humans.\nEnclosed are copies of the Office of Pipeline Safety Operations' Advisory Bulletin, Nos. 71-4, 73-\n11, 75-4, and 76-11, which contain interpretations of specific examples which may be of\nassistance.\nIf we can be of further assistance, please let me know.\nSincerely,\nCesar DeLeon\nActing Director\nOffice of Pipeline\nSafety Operations\ndal\\192.1-a\\5\\77-07-05\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nFebruary 25, 1977\nDepartment of Transportation\nOffice of Pipeline Safety Operations\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20024\nATTENTION: Director\nDear Gentlemen:\nWe have been requested by our client in Australia to seek your definition and advice on the\nfollowing which pertain to DOT regulations 192.5, class locations:\na. Basis for the number of buildings for class 1 and class 2 locations. How were the numbers\n10 or less buildings for class 1 and 46 or less buildings for class 2 locations arrived at?\nb. What is the interpretation of \"normal use\" as used in defining class locations? What\nfrequency of use of a building or defined outside area by more than 20 people would\nrequire the location to be classified 3; once a day, week, month, year?\nc. What is the interpretation of \"Intended for Human Occupancy\" as used in 192.5?\nOur Australia client is assisting with revisions to the Australia Pipeline Code and wishes to use the\ninterpretation and advice of your office on the above questions.\nWe would be grateful of any assistance you could provide.\nVery truly yours,\nWILLIAMS BROTHERS ENGINEERING COMPANY\nLeo R. Kenyon\ndal\\192.1-a\\5\\77-07-05\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":2686}