{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-79-0100","title":"Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-79-0100","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1979-02-06","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-79-0100 concerning 192.625.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-79-0100.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-79-0100.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-79-0100","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1979/g79-02-06_McCoy_192.625-msfx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-79-0100\nFebruary 06, 1979\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nMr. Donald E. McCoy\nTransportation Safety Institute\n6500 S. MacArthur Boulevard\nOklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125\nDear Mr. McCoy:\nThis is in response to your recent letter asking how much time is permitted under Part 192 to\nmake system changes (in particular odorization) necessitated by class location changes.\nWhile §192.613(a) requires an operator to make necessary changes, no time period for\ncompliance is specified. However, a similar provision under §192.611(c) requires confirmation\nor revision of MAOP within 18 months after a change in class location. In view of this\nsimilarity, it appears that an 18-month compliance period is appropriate to apply under\n§192.613(a). In a previous interpretation, we have stated that the 18-month period begins to run\nupon completion of a structure which results in a new class location (see May 12, 1978 memo to\nDMT-213.)\nSincerely,\nCesar De Leon\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nMr. Cesar DeLeon, Associate Director\nOffice of Pipeline Safety Regulations\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\nWashington, D. C. 20590\nDear Mr. DeLeon:\nThe purpose of this letter is to request your office's interpretation concerning CFR 49, paragraph\n192.625(b) regarding the odorization of natural gas in transmission lines.\nThe question is as follows:\nSuppose a transmission operator is not odorizing the gas in a segment of his pipeline\nsystem because the segment met the class location exemption allowed by either paragraph\n192.625(b)(1) or 192.625(b)(3). If the operator were to detect a class location change (i.e., from\nClass 1 or 2 to Class 3 or 4) when performing the surveillance procedures required by paragraph\n192.613(a), what period of time is he allowed under the regulations to accomplish the physical\nsystem changes necessary to now odorize the gas? Moreover, is this period of time measured\nfrom when the class locations actually changed or from when the operator detected the change in\nclass location?\nYour assistance in clarifying this question is appreciated.\nYour very truly,\nDonald E. McCoy\nPipeline Safety Specialist","truncated":false,"body_characters":2263}