USA Banner

Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation

Interpretation Response #PI-72-053 ([Pipe Line Service Company] [J. F. Pfrank])

Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date:

Company Name: Pipe Line Service Company

Individual Name: J. F. Pfrank

Location State: IL Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

Mr. J. F. Pfrank

Vice President, Operations

Pipe Line Service Company

3240 North Mannheim Road

Franklin Park, Illinois 60131

Dear Mr. Pfrank:

This is in response to your letter of November 7, 1972, concerning the marking requirements for gas pipe as set forth in 49 CFR §192.63. You recommend that the standards for marking be amended to eliminate weight per foot and replace it with the wall thickness.

Section 192.63 does not in itself state a requirement that pipe be marked to show weight per foot. Rather, that regulation requires that the pipe be marked as prescribed in the specification or standard to which it was manufactured. Thus, for example, marking on pipe manufactured to API 5L or 5LX would be required to show weight per foot. In such cases, however, the manufacturer's pipe tables would provide a ready cross-reference showing wall thickness.

It is recognized that for your purposes wall thickness may be more meaningful than weight per foot. However, for other persons such as shippers, the weight per foot may be more use.

Inasmuch as marking requirements for weight per foot follow industry-developed standards and serve a useful purpose, and since information on wall thickness is readily available, there does not appear to be a basis at this time for substituting wall thickness for weight per foot as a regulatory matter.

Your comments stating your position will be retained and reviewed, along with all other relevant material, at such time in the future as any amendments are considered for §192.63.



Joseph C. Caldwell


Office of Pipeline Safety

Regulation Sections

Section Subject
192.63 Marking of materials