{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-92-043","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1992-08-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-92-043 response to Memo: Internal concerning 195.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-92-043.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-92-043.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-92-043","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1992/PI92043.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nAugust 24, 1992\nINFORMATION: Part 195 Jurisdiction\nCesar De Leon\nDirector, Regulatory Programs, DPS-10\nEd Ondak\nDirector, Western Region, DPS-28\nYour memo of June 16, 1992, asks if Part 195 applies to two\npipelines. The first one, an 8-inch collection line that operates\nat less than 20% SMYS, transports stove oil from a Unocal facility\nin Portland to a nearby Santa Fe pipeline, which runs between\nPortland and Eugene. The second, a 12-inch delivery line that\noperates at less than 20% SMYS, transports gasoline from an Olympic\npipeline, which runs between Washington State and Portland, to a\nUnocal facility in Portland.\nPart 195 applies to pipelines used in the transportation of\nhazardous liquids. However, ?195.1(b)(3) exempts transportation of\na hazardous liquid through pipelines that operate at a stress level\nof 20 percent or less of SMYS. Because Part 195 applies to entire\npipeline systems, in applying this exemption, we consider an entire\npipeline system that operates at 20 percent or less of SMYS is\nexempt.\nNeither pipeline you asked about is a unique system. Each one is\nmerely a part of a larger system, serving either to introduce\nproducts into the system or take products from it. Therefore, each\npipeline is subject to Part 195. Ownership of the pipelines is not\na relevant jurisdictional consideration.\n#\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\1\\92-08-24\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":1378}