{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-91-011","title":"Kansas Corporation Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1991-04-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-91-011 response to Kansas Corporation Commission concerning 199.7.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-91-011.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-91-011.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-91-011","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1991/PI91011.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nApril 26, 1991\nMr. Glenn D. Smith\nChief, Pipeline Safety Utilities Division\nKansas Corporation Commission\n1500 S.W. Arrowhead Road\nTopeka, KS 66604-0427\nDear Mr. Smith:\nI am responding to your January 30, 1991, letter to Ivan Huntoon,\nChief, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety. You asked Mr.\nHuntoon to confirm your supposition that a gas operator's written\ndrug plan is permitted to include alcohol and more stringent drug\ntesting requirements than 49 CFR Parts 199 and 40 provided:\n(1) All subject matters relating to Parts 199 and 40 are\nclearly identified.\n(2) \"Clearly identified\" means:\n(a) Addressed only in separate, identified sections of\nthe plan; or,\n(b) Set apart in bold face type; or,\n(c) Underlined\nYour supposition is correct. It is allowable for a company to have\none overall drug testing plan which includes testing in addition\nto, but separate from, the requirements of Parts 199 and 40. Parts\n199 and 40 do not specify the format for operators' drug plans;\nhowever, operators, when combining other drug testing into the plan\nrequired by ? 199.7, must clearly identify those matters relating\nto Parts 199 and 40 by keeping these requirements in separate\nsections, set apart in bold face types, underlined, or other\nequivalent means. It must be stressed that where a test (including\nthe drugs tested for) varies from the requirements of Parts 199 and\n40, violation of the DOT drug rules cannot be used as a basis for\nany action regarding the employee tested.\nSincerely,\nGeorge W. Tenley, Jr.\nAssociate Administrator for\nPipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":1574}