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-93-011 ([California State Fire Marshal] [James Wait])

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

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date:

Company Name: California State Fire Marshal

Individual Name: James Wait

Location State: CA Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

March 3, 1993

Mr. James Wait

Division Chief, Pipeline Safety

California State Fire Marshal

Suite 600

7171 Bowling Drive

Sacramento, CA 95823-2034

Dear Mr. Wait:

I apologize for not responding sooner to your letter of July 7, 1992, regarding pipelines associated with marine terminals. You asked us to explain the limits of jurisdiction under 49 CFR Part 195 over pipelines in marine terminals shown in drawings attached to your letter, assuming the pipelines operate above 20 percent of SMYS.

Unfortunately, because we lack on-site familiarity with the facilities in your drawings, we cannot definitely state which ones would be covered by the regulations if they were operating above 20 percent of SMYS. However, I believe you will find the "Liquid Drawings" in the Pipeline Safety Regulations manual provided by the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) useful in answering your questions. TSI used these drawings as guidelines on jurisdictional questions for pipelines operating above 20 percent of SMYS. If you are still uncertain about jurisdiction after reviewing these drawings, please consult the Director of our Western Region Office, Ed Ondak, for further clarification.

Hopefully you will find the drawings beneficial in resolving the enforcement redundancy your agency is apparently experiencing with the U.S. Coast Guard on lines operating at 20 percent or less of SMYS. Should the applicability of Part 195 be expanded to cover these pipeline, we will consider the need for a memorandum of understanding with the Coast Guard as you have suggested.

Sincerely,

Cesar DeLeon

Director, Regulatory Programs

Office of Pipeline Safety

Regulation Sections

Section Subject
195.1 Which pipelines are covered by this Part?