Interpretation Response #PI-80-007 ([Freeman, Freeman & Smiley] [Bruce M. Smiley])

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

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 03/12/1980

Company Name: Freeman, Freeman & Smiley

Individual Name: Bruce M. Smiley

Location State: CA Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

Mr. Bruce M. Smiley

Law Offices

Freeman, Freeman & Smiley

A Professional Corporation

Century Park Center, Suite 950

9911 West Pico Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90035

Dear Mr. Smiley:

This letter is written in response to your letter of July 19, 1979, and also telephone conversation of July 17 and 18, 1979 requesting our confirmation of an oral interpretation of 49 CFR 195.200. We regret the long delay in responding.

The enclosed pipeline safety regulatory interpretation provides the information you requested.

Sincerely,

/signed/

Cesar De Leon

Associate Director for

Pipeline Safety Regulation

Materials Transportation Bureau

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU

PIPELINE SAFETY REGULATORY INTERPRETATION

Note: A pipeline safety regulatory interpretation applies a particular rule to a particular set of facts and circumstances, and, as such, may be relied upon only by those persons to whom the interpretation is specifically addressed.

SECTION: Section 192.327, 195.248, and 195.200

Subject: Development near pipelines

FACTS: A person wishes to purchase property in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Once purchased, this person intends to construct improvements on the property which will fall within the "Class 3 location" definition of 49 CFR 192.5(d).

This property is encumbered by two independent easements in favor of Continental Pipe Line Company and Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, respectively. Each easement contains pipelines which may be carrying either gases or liquids.

All pipelines are assumed in compliance with the Department's pipeline safety regulations applicable to undeveloped property.

Question: Does Subpart D of Part 195 apply to a situation involving only grading and improving the property, adding additional ground cover, and erecting building improvements? Specifically, do these activities fall within the meaning of "otherwise changing existing pipeline systems" under §195.200?

Interpretation: As stated in §195.200, Subpart D applies to construction of new steel pipeline systems and to relocating, replacing, or otherwise changing existing steel pipeline systems.

None of the activities mentioned would provide a reason to apply the construction requirements of Subpart D according to the provisions of §195.200. Each of the stated criteria for applying Subpart D involves either new construction or some physical alteration to an existing pipeline, and the activities planned would not physically alter the existing pipelines. Although the planned grading could physically alter the condition of the pipelines' right-of-way, this would not have the effect of "otherwise changing" the pipelines since the terms "pipeline" and "pipeline system" are defined in terms of "physical facilities," a term which does not include rights-of-way or land used by a pipeline.

Question: Do the cover requirements of §192.327 and §195.248 apply to the pipelines?

Interpretation: In accordance with §192.13 for gas pipelines and §195.200 for liquid pipelines, the cover requirements apply to pipelines at the time of construction or when a pipeline is subsequently replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed.

Cesar De Leon

Associate Director for

Pipeline Safety Regulation

Materials Transportation Bureau

Regulation Sections