Interpretation Response #PI-78-0103
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name:
Individual Name:
Country: US
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
MAY 12, 1978
Interpretation of §195.410
Chief, Technical Division
Acting Director, Office of Pipeline Safety Operations
Section 195.410 requires line markers in . . . sufficient number . . . that its (pipeline) location
is accurately known. From the remaining requirements of §195.410, the standard practices of the
industry, and other actions of this office, it is apparent that the intent of §195.410 is to
require line markers at crossings of navigable waterways.
I have attached copies of two previous interpretations of §195.410 that appear to be in conflict. I
agree with the 1974 interpretation to Mr. Collins. I do not agree with the 1976 interpretation to
Mr. Merriman even though it had Technical Division concurrence.
Original signed by
Original signed
Frank E. Fulton
April 2, 1974
Mr. Fred J. Collins
Manager, Right of Way Department
Colonial Pipeline Company
3390 Peachtree Road, N.E.
Lenox Towers
Atlanta, GA 30326
Dear Mr. Collins:
This refers to your letter of March 6, 1974, concerning Section 195.410, placement of line markers.
Specifically you requested our review and advice concerning five water crossings, and possible
consideration for waiver.
Section 195.410 requires each carrier to place and maintain line markers over each buried line in
sufficient number so that its location is accurately known. Also, line markers placed on each side
of a navigable waterway crossing must have the additional words, "Do Not Anchor or Dredge." If the
water crossing is not a navigable waterway crossing, then a normal line marker placed on each side
of the crossing will satisfy Section 195.410.
The Office of Pipeline Safety does not give preliminary opinions as to whether particular
circumstances present sufficient grounds for a waiver. Therefore, we are returning your plats
covering the Elizabeth and Raritan River, Rancocas and Raccoon Creeks, all in New Jersey, and the
Nansemond River located in Virginia.
To determine if a waiver should be granted in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 5, the carrier should
show why Section
195.410 is not appropriate, why the public interest would be served, and a discussion of the basis
upon which the proposal would not be inconsistent with liquid pipeline safety.
The requirement to mark the location of pipelines is considered an essential part of our program to
reduce the number of accidents on pipeline systems and thus improve public safety.
If we may be of any further assistance to you in this matter, please advise. Sincerely,
Joseph C. Caldwell
Director
Office of Pipeline Safety
OCT 5 1976
Mr. Donald R. Merriman Buckeye Pipe Line Company P.O. Box 368
Emmaus, Pennsylvania 18049
Dear Mr. Merriman:
This refers to your letter of September 15, 1976, requesting an exemption from the line marking
requirements of 49 CFR 195.410(a)(2) with regard to two 10-inch pipelines installed within a
24-inch concrete coated steel casing beneath The Narrows crossing between Staten Island and
Brooklyn, New York.
Section 195.410(a)(2) requires that line markers which are installed at navigable waterway
crossings must bear a prescribed legend written in letters of a certain size on a background of
sharply contrasting color. It is not clear from your exemption request whether Buckeye would prefer
to nest some alternative marking requirements at The Narrows crossing or not to install any markers
at the crossing. If the former is the case, you have not proposed what alternative marking
requirements would be appropriate. If the latter is the case, since Section 195.410 does not
require that carriers install line markers at navigable waterway crossings, an exemption is
unnecessary. Therefore, we have not accepted your letter as a petition for exemption.
Should Buckeye wish to install markers at The Narrows crossing in a manner contrary to that
required by Section 195.410(a) we would, of course, consider the matter upon a showing of what
alternative requirements are proposed to be met.
Sincerely, Cesar DeLeon
Acting Director Office of Pipeline Safety Operations
10/27/77
Possible Violations of 49 CFR Part 195 on TAPS
Buck Furrow
Cesar DeLeon
This memorandum states my views on Lloyd's recommendations regarding the TAPS.
Recommendation #1:
Sections 195.254(a)(5) and 195.410(d) are not inconsistent inasmuch as other provisions of Section
195.254 permit aboveground installations in areas which may be "accessible" to the public (such as
"spans over ditches"). In addition, as a maintenance requirement, Section 195.410(d) applies to all
lines not just new ones subject to section 195.254(a)(5).
The phrase "inaccessible to the public" should be interpreted in light of the purpose of the rule —
to permit aboveground installations in areas where the opportunity for interference by the public
(other than sabotage) is minimal. This description fits areas where access is controlled by the
carrier (§195.254(a)(4), areas that are not generally open for use by the public (e.g., private
noncommercial property, farm land), and areas which, although open to the public, are remotely
located and very difficult to reach (e.g., portions of a national forest).
The proximity of a pipeline to existing public roads is a factor to consider in determining
"accessibility." The same would not be true for haul roads used solely by the carrier for
construction and maintenance. A more relevant consideration is whether the immediate area of the
pipeline is legally open or closed to the public, and if open, how easy would it be for someone to
get to the pipeline. A decision on whether Section
192.254(a) (5) is violated should be made on the basis of all circumstances pertaining to the
location of the
line and the opportunity for public access. Lloyd's memo does not provide sufficient information
upon which to base a sound decision on whether the pipeline is "accessible to the public."
Recommendation #2:
Section 195.116(e) does not specifically require that a valve's position be indicated at the valve.
Thus, an
electrical means for remote indication would satisfy the requirement, particularly since it is
written in performance language.
The NPRM was more specific. It proposed that a valve be "equipped with a device that clearly
indicates... valve position." If the language of this proposal had been adopted as final, the rule
would require that valve position be shown at the valve. While there is no discussion of the
language change in the final rule, we can presume it was to relax the proposed requirement to
permit valve readings at remote locations as well as at the valve.
L M. Furrow