{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-90-023","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1990-06-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-90-023 response to Memo: Internal concerning 192.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-90-023.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-90-023.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-90-023","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1990/PI90023.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nSUBJECT: Interpretation #80-12\nFROM: William H. Gute, DPS-20\nAssistant Director for Operations & Enforcement\nTO: Cesar DeLeon\nIn light of recent communications issued by DCC-1 and OPS Regulations (examples attached), it\nappears that Interpretation #80-12 (copy attached) is no longer appropriate. Since this\ninterpretation has had wide distribution among the operators and the state agencies involved in\npipeline safety, I recommend that Interpretation #80-12 be rescinded. I also suggest that a\nstatement be promptly issued that clearly defines the application of the NGPSA and Part 192 to\nthe gas transmission lines presently in use often defined as \"Direct Sales lines\", \"large volume\ncustomer owned service lines\", and/or \"interplant lines.\" This statement should address the issues\nof ownership of gas, ownership/operator of the pipeline, starting point from inter or intrastate\ntransmission line, and end point of jurisdiction in relation to the measurement meter and the\nconsumer's property line.\nThere are presently several instances where state agencies are being challenged on their authority\nto inspect these lines and the Regions and the States also have questions on the unclear limits of\nauthority or, in some cases, if the lines are jurisdictional at all. The recent FERC rule change\npermitting interstate operators to transport gas purchased at the source by the consumer has\nfurther complicated this matter and created more instances of conflict of opinion on jurisdiction.\nA prompt response to this request would be of benefit to OPS, state agencies, and the operators.\nAttachments\n90-06-11\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nMr. Mike Kane\nAssistant Commissioner\nUtility Program\nPublic Utility Commission of Oregon\nLabor & Industries Building\nSalem, Oregon, 97310-0335\nDear Mr. Kane:\nThank you for the copy of your September 7, 1989, letter to Kevin Madden of FERC regarding\nthe safety of customer-owned lines that are supplied high-pressure gas by taps on interstate\ntransmission lines. The letter indicates we need to explain the application of the Part 192\nregulations to these high-pressure customer-owned lines.\nPart 192 applies to the transportation of gas by pipeline, which includes each of the recognized\nstages of gas pipeline transportation - gathering, transmission, and distribution. As the Part 192\ndefinition of \"service line \" indicates, the jurisdiction of Part 192 over the distribution of gas ends\nat the customer meter or the connection to customer-owned piping, whichever point is farther\ndownstream. In contrast, the regulations do not specify a point on a pipeline at which jurisdiction\nover the gathering or transmission of gas ends. Thus, the full length of pipelines used in the\ngathering or transmission of gas comes under the jurisdiction of Part 192, without limitation by\ncustomer meters or the beginning of customer-owned piping.\nUnder Part 192 the question of whether a pipeline is used on the transmission or distribution of\ngas is determined by the definitions of \"transmission line\" and \"distribution line.\" Note that the\ndistribution-line definition provides that a pipeline is not a distribution line if it qualities as a\ntransmission line.\nApplying these definitions to taps on interstate transmission lines, we find that the taps are\nclassified as transmission lines when, in accordance with out longstanding interpretation of the\ndefinition of \"transmission line,\" they are used to deliver a large volume of gas to a customer.\nLarge volumes include delivery in the 400-800 psig range you mentioned. The high-pressure\ncustomer-owned lines located downstream from meters at these high-pressure taps are merely\nlateral extensions of transmission lines.\nThe jurisdiction of Part 192 over customer-owned gas transmission lines was made evident when\nwe granted the International Paper Company a waiver from a Part 192 corrosion control rule for\nan interstate transmission line the company operates to supply its paper mill in Natchez,\nMississippi. (50 FR 45186, October 30, 1985).\nWe recognize that because the regulations lack an express jurisdictional end point for the\ntransmission of gas, confusion may arise regarding the bounds of Federal or State authority over90-06-11\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\ncustomer-owned transmission lines. In this regard, a rulemaking proceeding has been scheduled\nto propose that our large-volume-customer interpretation be codified in the Part 192 definition of\ntransmission line. We will include in that proceeding a proposal to adopt a suitable end point for\nthe jurisdiction of Part 192 over customer-owned transmission lines.\nYour letter does not say whether the Oregon Public Utility Commission has jurisdiction over the\ncustomer-owned high pressure lines in question. We prefer that enforcement of Part 192 against\noperators of such intrastate lines handled directly by State agencies.\nSincerely,\nGeorge W. Tenley, Jr.\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n90-06-11","truncated":false,"body_characters":4937}