{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-78-0110","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-78-0110","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1978-11-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-78-0110 concerning 192.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-78-0110.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-78-0110.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-78-0110","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1978/g78-11-30_SIMPSON_192.3_Transmission%20Line-nlmx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-78-0110\nNovember 30, 1978\nMr. A. D. Simpson, III\nEast Tennessee Natural Gas Company\nP.O. Box 2511\nHouston, Texas 77001\nDear Mr. Simpson:\nAs a result of your September 6, 1978, letter supplying additional information about the\nKingsport Lateral System, we have reconsidered our Interpretation of August 2, 1978, that the\nportion of the Kingsport Lateral System used to deliver gas to the General Shale Corporation is\nnot a \"transmission line.\"\nOf particular importance is your point that the present definition of \"transmission line\" in 49 CFR\n192.3 was not preceded by a proposed definition of the term in the notices of proposed\nrulemaking upon which Part 192 is based. Since the term \"transmission line\" was used in those\nnotices and the notices were, in general, based on the U.S.A.S. B31.8 Code (1968 ed.), we agree\nthat the notices must have been drafted with the B31.8 definition of \"transmission line\" in mind.\nUnder these circumstances, it would be improper to conclude as we did in the August 2, 1978,\nInterpretation that the adopted definition of \"transmission line\" in Part 192 was intended to alter\nthe meaning intended by the B31.8 Code.\nSince the term \"transmission line\" in Part 192 is intended to have the same meaning as that in the\nB31.8 Code, it follows that the term \"distribution center,\" which marks the end of a \"transmission\nline\" in the adopted definition, must be interpreted to include a \"large volume customer,\" a term\nwhich marked the end of a \"transmission line\" under the B31.8 Code.\nTo apply this interpretation, we must determine what B31.8 meant by \"large volume customer.\"\nThere is no question that as we previously stated, a \"distribution center\" occurs at a \"point where\ngas enters piping used primarily to deliver gas to customers who purchase it for consumption.\"\nBasically, this includes points where title to gas is transferred from a transmission company to a\ndistribution company. Since in the B31.8 Code, the terms \"distribution center\" and \"large\nvolume customer\" were both used to define the end of a \"transmission line,\" it is logical to\nconclude that except for the factor of resale, a \"large volume customer\" meant a customer with\nattributes similar to those of a distribution company. Foremost among these attributes are the\nreceipt of similar volumes of gas and the operation of piping facilities common to a distribution\ncompany. Thus, a customer fitting this description would also represent a \"distribution center\"\nunder Part 192.\nTo properly answer your original inquiry, we have looked at whether the General Shale\nCorporation qualifies as a \"large volume customer\" within the meaning of the B31.8 Code.\nBased on the information you have submitted, we find that General Shale (1) receives gas in a\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nquantity almost as large as that delivered to the neighboring distribution company, Volunteer\nNatural Gas Company; and (2) operates piping similar to that operated by a distribution\ncompany. Since these factors characterize a \"large volume customer\" within the meaning of\n\"distribution center\" under the adopted \"transmission line\" definition, the portion of the\nKingsport Lateral System serving General Shale, or the General Shale lateral, is a \"transmission\nline\" under Part 192. Further, based on the information provided in your May 17, 1978, letter\nconcerning class locations, it appears that at least 50 percent of the length of the General Shale\nlateral is in a Class 1 location, and therefore, the lateral is exempt from orodization under section\n192.625(b((3).\nTo ensure that our interpretation of \"transmission line.\" particularly the \"distribution center\"\naspect regarding \"large volume customers\" is applied uniformly, we intend to publish it in the\nFederal Register. At the same time, we will invite public comments on the Impact of this\ninterpretation on the regulated industry and on public safety, and also on our judgment as to what\nconstitutes a \"large volume customers.\" If the comments warrant it, we may change our\ninterpretation or propose to change the definition of \"transmission line.\"\nSincerely,\nCesar DeLeon\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nAugust 2, 1978\nMr. A. D. Simpson, III\nEast Tennessee Natural\nGas Company\nP. O. Box 2511\nHouston, Texas 77001\nDear Mr. Simpson:\nBy letter of May 17, 1978, you requested our opinion on whether 49 CFR 192.625(b)(1) and (2)\nrequires East Tennessee to odorize that portion of its Kingsport Lateral System that is used to\ndeliver gas to the General Shale Corporation.\nAs shown on Exhibit A to your May 17 letter, the Kingsport Lateral System consists of an\narrangement of interlocking pipelines from East Tennessee's 3300 line. That portion of the\nSystem serving General Shale consists of the Kingsport Lateral, about 2,642 feet of the Mead\nCorporation Lateral, and the General Shale Lateral.\nTo answer you correctly, we asked for an explanation of East Tennessee's basis for classifying\nthat portion of the System serving General Shale as a \"transmission line\" under Part 192. This\ninformation was provided by your letter of June 9, 1978.\nYou have made at least three separate arguments: First, you point out that under the industry\ncode in effect before the adoption of 49 CFR Part 192 (the ANSI B31.8 Code), a \"transmission\nline\" was defined as \" 'pipe installed for the purpose of transmitting gas from a source or sources\nof supply to one or more distribution centers or to one or more large volume customers...'\"\nBecause of the volume being delivered to General Shale (4196 Mcf/d), presumably we are to\nconclude that the pipeline involved is a transmission line under the ANSI definition. Regardless\nof such a conclusion, however, the term \"transmission line\" is defined in Part 192 (§192.3), and it\nis that definition that we must look to first in determining which gas pipelines are subject to Part\n192 standards that apply to transmission lines. Only if the \"transmission line\" definition is\nconsidered ambiguous in any respect would we look for clarifying information in background\ndocuments such as the B31.8 Code.\nYour next argument relates to the statutory definition of the term \"interstate transmission\nfacilities.\" You state that all East Tennessee's facilities fall within that statutory definition and,\ntherefore, are by implication \"transmission pipelines.\" Notwithstanding this implication, the\nterm \"transmission line\" in Part 192 is not defined in terms which relate to an \"interstate\ntransmission facility.\" Therefore, it cannot be correctly concluded that if a pipeline fits the\nstatutory definition of \"interstate transmission facility,\" it is consequently a \"transmission line\"\nunder Part 192. Further, while we disagree with your interpretation of the 1976 amendment to\nthe statutory definition of \"interstate transmission facility,\" we concur with your view that there\nis no relation between that amendment and the classification of pipelines as \"transmission lines\"\nunder Part 192.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nYour last argument relates to the definition of the term \"transmission line\" in Section 192.3.\nUnder Section 192.3, if a gas pipeline which is not a gathering line (1) either transports gas from\na gathering line or storage facility to a distribution center or storage facility,(2) operates at 20\npercent or more of SMYS, or (3) transports gas within a storage field, it is a \"transmission line.\"\nOtherwise it is a \"distribution line.\" Considering all the information presented (including the\nexcerpted Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee transcript), it appears that by this\ndefinition, that portion of the Kingsport Lateral System used to deliver has to the General Shale\nCorporation would be a transmission line in its entirety only if the point of delivery qualifies as a\n\"distribution center.\" Since this latter term is not defined, it must be interpreted in light of its\nordinary meaning and usage in the industry.\nYou have argued that the point of delivery to General Shale is a \"distribution center\" because the\ndownstream piping is \"a distribution network which delivers gas to the various points of\nutilization in the General Shale plant.\" We are not persuaded, however, that the natural gas\ntransmission industry commonly refers to a point of delivery to an industrial customer as a\n\"distribution center.\" The word \"distribution\" itself has a plural connotation, and the ANSI\ndefinition of \"transmission line\" which you cited distinguishes \"distribution centers\" from \"large\nvolume customers.\"\nWe have not found a written definition of the term \"distribution center\" in ANSI B31.8 or in\nother relevant background material. Nevertheless, we believe that the term commonly refers to\nthat point where gas enters piping used primarily to deliver gas to customers who purchases it for\nconsumption as opposed to customers who purchase it for resale. In this sense, the connection of\nthe Kingsport Lateral with the 3300 Line is a \"distribution center,\" and the downstream piping\ncomprises either mains or service lines which must be odorized under the requirements of\nSection 192.625(a).\nWe recognize that under this interpretation, the lines serving General Shale have a different\nclassification than existed under ANSI B31.8 prior to the adoption of Part 192. However, we\nhave no reason to believe that the Part 192 definition of \"transmission line\" - inasmuch as it\ndeletes the reference to large volume customers contained in the ANSI definition - was not\nintended to alter prior classifications. Indeed, just the opposite seems true, as indicated by the\npreamble to Part 192 where it is stated with respect to Section 192.3, \"We have defined those\nterms which are being used in a different sense than the commonly understood meaning.\nSincerely,\nCesar De Leon\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau","truncated":false,"body_characters":9896}