{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-74-0123","title":"Grey Forest Utilities — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1974-07-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-74-0123 response to Grey Forest Utilities concerning 192.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0123.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0123.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-74-0123","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1974/g74-07-05_Grant_192.1-nlmx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-74-0123\nJul 5 1974\nMr. Robert S. Grant\nGrey Forest Utilities\nP.O. Box 258\nHelotea, TX 78023\nDear Mr. Grant:\nThank you for your letter of June 10, 1974, asking whether contracting for service to handle\nemergency situations would absolve the utility from responsibility and liability for damages\nwhich may arise after the contractor is notified.\nPart 192 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that an operator of a gas pipeline\nmust perform various tasks in order to comply with Federal gas pipeline safety standards. Part\n192 does not prohibit an operator from contracting with another person to provide, on his behalf,\nany action required by that Part. However, where action is performed by a contractor on behalf\nof an operator, the operator remains responsible for compliance of the action with the standards\ncontained in Part 192.\nQuestions of liability for property damage or personal injury resulting from pipeline failures are\noutside the jurisdiction of this office. Such questions are a matter of common or statutory law\nand should be directed to a counselor-at-law.\nWe appreciate your interest in pipeline safety.\nSincerely,\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n192.1 1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nSep 27 1974\nMr. Donald H. Ernest\nDirector, Pipeline Safety\nIndiana Public Service Commission\n901 State Office Building\nIndianapolis, IN 46204\nDear Mr. Ernest:\nThis responds to your letter of September 13, 1974, requesting our interpretation of a matter\nraised by the Indiana Gas Association, Inc. (IGA).\nIGA is concerned about a requirement in 49 CFR Part 192 that inspections must be performed \"at\nintervals not exceeding one year.\" Where an inspection is performed on June 1 of a given year,\nIGA asks if the next inspection must be performed on May 31 of the following year.\nThe phrase \"at intervals not exceeding one year\" defines the maximum period of time between\ninspections, but it does not require that each inspection be performed precisely one year later\nthan the preceding one. Under the phrase, an inspection may be performed at any time, but must\noccur no later than one year after the preceding inspection. Thus, in the example cited by IGA, if\nan inspection is performed on June 1, the next inspection must be performed before June 1 of the\nfollowing year but may be performed at any time in between.\nWe trust our response is helpful to you.\nSincerely,\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n192.1 2","truncated":false,"body_characters":2475}