49 U.S.C. § 60104

Requirements and limitations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Opportunity To Present Views.—The Secretary of Transportation shall give an interested person an opportunity to make oral and written presentations of information, views, and arguments when prescribing a standard under this chapter.(b)Nonapplication.—A design, installation, construction, initial inspection, or initial testing standard does not apply to a pipeline facility existing when the standard is adopted.(c)Preemption.—A State authority that has submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) of this title may adopt additional or more stringent safety standards for intrastate pipeline facilities and intrastate pipeline transportation only if those standards are compatible with the minimum standards prescribed under this chapter. A State authority may not adopt or continue in force safety standards for interstate pipeline facilities or interstate pipeline transportation. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a State authority may enforce a requirement of a one-call notification program of the State if the program meets the requirements for one-call notification programs under this chapter or chapter 61.(d)Consultation.—(1) When continuity of gas service is affected by prescribing a standard or waiving compliance with standards under this chapter, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with and advise the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or a State authority having jurisdiction over the affected gas pipeline facility before prescribing the standard or waiving compliance. The Secretary shall delay the effective date of the standard or waiver until the Commission or State authority has a reasonable opportunity to grant an authorization it considers necessary.(2) In a proceeding under section 3 or 7 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b or 717f), each applicant for authority to import natural gas or to establish, construct, operate, or extend a gas pipeline facility subject to an applicable safety standard shall certify that it will design, install, inspect, test, construct, operate, replace, and maintain a gas pipeline facility under those standards and plans for inspection and maintenance under section 60108 of this title. The certification is binding on the Secretary of Energy and the Commission except when an appropriate enforcement agency has given timely written notice to the Commission that the applicant has violated a standard prescribed under this chapter.(e)Location and Routing of Facilities.—This chapter does not authorize the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe the location or routing of a pipeline facility.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1308; Pub. L. 107–355, § 3(a), Dec. 17, 2002, 116 Stat. 2986.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
60104(a)	49 App.:1672(c).	Aug. 12, 1968, Pub. L. 90–481, § 3(c), 82 Stat. 721; Nov. 30, 1979, Pub. L. 96–129, §§ 104(a)(2), (c), 109(c), 93 Stat. 992, 994, 996.
	49 App.:2002(g).	Nov. 30, 1979, Pub. L. 96–129, §§ 202(4) (28th–last words), 203(c) (last sentence), (g), 93 Stat. 1003, 1004, 1005.
60104(b)	49 App.:1672(a)(1) (6th sentence).	Aug. 12, 1968, Pub. L. 90–481, § 3(a)(1) (6th, 9th, last sentences), 82 Stat. 721; Oct. 11, 1976, Pub. L. 94–477, § 4(2), 90 Stat. 2073; Nov. 30, 1979, Pub. L. 96–129, §§ 101(a), 109(c), (e), 93 Stat. 990, 996; Oct. 24, 1992, Pub. L. 102–508, § 116, 106 Stat. 3298.
	49 App.:2002(c) (last sentence).
60104(c)	49 App.:1672(a)(1) (9th, last sentences).
	49 App.:2002(d).	Nov. 30, 1979, Pub. L. 96–129, § 203(d), 93 Stat. 1004; Oct. 24, 1992, Pub. L. 102–508, § 215, 106 Stat. 3305.
60104(d)	49 App.:1676(a).	Aug. 12, 1968, Pub. L. 90–481, § 9(a), 82 Stat. 725; Nov. 30, 1979, Pub. L. 96–129, §§ 109(i), 152(a), (b)(3), 93 Stat. 997, 999, 1001; Oct. 30, 1988, Pub. L. 100–561, § 105(1), 102 Stat. 2807.
60104(e)	49 App.:1671(4) (33d–last words).	Aug. 12, 1968, Pub. L. 90–481, § 2(4) (33d–last words), 82 Stat. 720.
	49 App.:2001(4) (28th–last words).

Subsection (a) is substituted for 49 App.:1672(c) (last sentence) and 2002(g) (last sentence) to eliminate unnecessary words. The text of 49 App.:1672(c) (1st sentence) and 2002(g) (1st sentence) is omitted as unnecessary because 5:ch. 5, subch. II applies unless otherwise stated.

In subsection (c), the words “prescribed under this chapter” are added for clarity. The words “after the Federal minimum standards become effective” in 49 App.:1672(a) (last sentence) are omitted as obsolete.

In subsection (d)(1), the words “waiving compliance” are substituted for “action upon application for waiver” and “acting on the waiver application” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “the provisions of” are omitted as surplus. The word “authority” is substituted for “commission” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code.

In subsection (d)(2), the words “and conclusive” are omitted as being included in “binding”. The words “Secretary of Energy” are substituted for “Department of Energy” because of 42:7231.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–355 inserted at end “Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a State authority may enforce a requirement of a one-call notification program of the State if the program meets the requirements for one-call notification programs under this chapter or chapter 61.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Washington Gas Light Co. v. Prince George's Cnty. Council, 711 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Washington Gas Light Co. v. Prince George's Cnty. Council, 711 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c) (2006). Accordingly, we have held that the PSA expressly preempts state and local law in the field of safety.”

Nw. Gas Ass'n v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 141 Wash. App. 98 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c). Under this section, the Federal DOT has certified the WUTC to regulate intrastate pipeline operators and facilities in the State of Washington.”

Nw. Gas Ass'n v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Com'n, 168 P.3d 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c). Under this section, the Federal DOT has certified the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) to regulate intrastate pipeline operators and facilities in the State of Washington.”

Olympic Pipe Line Co., a Delaware Corp. v. City of Seattle, a Washington Mun. Corp., 437 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “” 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c) (provision entitled “Preemption”).”

Save Our Illinois Land v. Illinois Com. Comm'n, 2022 IL App (4th) 210008 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 3× “” 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c) (2018). If the Commission had denied permission to construct the proposed pumping stations and if the Commission had cited, as the reason for the denial, the inability of the leak-detection system to readily detect leaks of less than 1% of throughput, the…”

Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland, 288 F. Supp. 3d 321 (D. Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “[T]he definition of "pipelines" and "pipeline facilities" subject to PSA jurisdiction expressly excludes facilities, such as Pier 2 and the Waterfront Tanks, "used exclusively to transfer hazardous liquid .”

Texas Midstream Gas Servs., LLC v. City of Grand Prairie, 608 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2010). “See 49 U.S.C.A. § 60104 (c). Congress has expressly identified the preempted area, so we will not ask if others are implicitly covered.”

Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 237 Cal. App. 4th 812 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “( 49 U.S.C. §§ 60104 (c), 60105(b)(2), 60106(b); Olympic Pipe Line Co.”

Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. City of Seattle, 316 F. Supp. 2d 900 (W.D. Wash. 2004). · cites it 5× “See Preliminary Injunction Order at 8 (“Notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (e), safety regulation of intrastate pipelines is expressly preempted by 49 U.”

People Ex Rel. Sneddon v. Torch Energy Servs., Inc., 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “” ( 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c).) Torch also relies on an administrative regulation which states: “The HLPSA leaves to exclusive Federal regulation and enforcement the ‘interstate pipeline facilities,’ those used for the pipeline transportation of hazardous liquids in interstate or…”

City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 796 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2015). “Although states may not directly regulate or impose additional or more stringent safety standards on interstate pipelines, 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c), the Pipeline Safety Act provides a strong role for state involvement in intrastate pipeline regulation.”

Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Wright, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Kan. 2010). · cites it 3× “49 U.S.C. § 60104 (d)(2). Consistent with this legislation, FERC’s regulations require an applicant to attach exhibits to its application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity that, in part, certify: *1178 that it will design, install, inspect, test, construct,…”

S. Union Co. v. Lynch, 321 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D.R.I. 2004). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c). Thus, “the statute is clear that its jurisdiction extends to all pipeline facilities, whether intrastate or interstate, engaged in the transportation of gas in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce — i.”

Lng v. Loqa, 79 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.R.I. 2000). “Express preemption is not at issue in this case because, although the parties agree that the NGPSA specifically preempts state and local regulation with respect to safety standards, see 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c), the Act does not refer to zoning ordinances.”

Michelle Knight v. Enbridge Pipelines (FSP), 759 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2014). “The Operator replied that the right to build a pipeline has no time limit and that federal law, in particular 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c), preempts enforcement of the farmability condition.”

Washington Gas Light Co. v. Prince George's Cnty. Council Sitting as the Dist. Council, 784 F. Supp. 2d 565 (D. Maryland 2011). · cites it 2× “In addition, this court determined that under the Pipeline Safety Act (“PSA”) Plaintiff is an intrastate facility making express preemption, as set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c), inapplicable. (Id.”

S. Cal. Gas Co. v. Cal. Occupational Saf. & Health Appeals Bd., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7920 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “( 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c).) The act expressly preempts state regulation relating to the safety of interstate pipelines: “A State authority may not adopt or continue in force safety standards for interstate pipeline facilities or interstate pipeline transportation.”

No Tanks Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 1997 ME 167 (Me. 1997). “14 (a)(6-d) (1996), and a certification of compliance with the applicable standards pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (d)(2) (1994). A Commission review of safety and environmental issues surrounding the siting of the Wells tank would be an attempt to regulate *1316 matters within…”

Stutler v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 998 F. Supp. 968 (S.D. Ind. 1998). “” 1 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c). 2 Plaintiffs, however, maintain *970 that a narrow reading should be given to this provision because the HLPSA also providés that the citizens civil action provision under the Act “does not restrict a right or relief that a person or a class of persons…”

Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation v. Enbridge Energy Co., Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2022). · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c) (“A State authority may not adopt or continue in force safety standards for interstate pipeline facilities or interstate pipeline transportation.”

William Couser v. Shelby Cnty. (8th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “” 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c) (emphasis added). “Congress has expressly stated its intent to preempt the states from regulating in the area of safety in connection with interstate -5- hazardous liquid pipelines.”

Thompson v. Heineman (Neb. 2015). · cites it 3× “7 See id., § 5(2) (codified at Neb. Rev. Stat.”

Olympic Pipeline v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “” 49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c) (provision entitled “Preemption”).”

United States v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 153 F. Supp. 3d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 2× “60105 be at least as stringent as the federal scheme: A State authority that has submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) of this title may adopt additional or more stringent safety standards for intrastate pipeline facilities and intrastate pipeline…”

City of Lancaster v. PA PUC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022). “49 U.S.C. § 60104 (c). PAM - 3 dangers from gas leaks.”

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC v. Weymouth Conservation Comm'n (D. Mass. 2017). “The PSA provides that the Department of Transportation has exclusive authority to establish safety standards for interstate natural gas pipelines and facilities, and bars any “State authority” from “adopt[ing] or continu[ing] in force safety standards for interstate pipeline…”

Barnhill (S.D.W. Va 2026). “Removing defendants point to 49 U.S.C. §60104 (c) which provides that a “State authority may not adopt or continue in force safety standards for interstate pipeline facilities or 9 interstate pipeline transportation.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.