Interpretation Response #PI-76-023 ([House of Representatives] [Honorable Richard Nolan])

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

Interpretation Response Details

Response Publish Date: 05/14/1976

Company Name: House of Representatives

Individual Name: Honorable Richard Nolan

Location State: DC Country: US

View the Interpretation Document

Response text:

May 14, 1976

Mr. Stan Mahon
Staff Assistant
Office of Honorable Richard Nolan
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Mahon:

This responds to your letter dated April 5, 1976, to Mr. Don Ruby of the Office of Congressional
Relations, requesting the Department's views on Mrs. Fred Junker's inquiry about a service charge
made for maintaining an odorizer installed as required by Section 192.625 of Title 49 of the Code
of Federal Regulations.

Section 192.625 requires that gas transported in a pipeline used to distribute gas to a customer
must be odorized so that a person with a normal sense of smell can detect the gas before an
explosive concentration is reached. Each operator of a distribution line is legally responsible for
compliance with this odorization requirement.

We have discussed the service charge issue with the Minnesota State Fire Marshal's office which
is certified under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 to enforce the Federal safety
regulations against intrastate gas facilities in Minnesota. The Fire Marshal's office said that many
customers are receiving gas from an interstate transmission line that is not required to carry
odorized gas. As a condition of the agreement to obtain the gas service, the customers have
agreed to pay the cost of the required odorization. Since the operator is responsible for
odorization, and maintenance and service of the odorizer is a matter for a trained technician, the
operator has elected to do this work with its personnel.

The Department has no authority over the charge which an operator bills its customers to meet
the cost of complying with the Federal safety regulations. We suggest that you contact the
Minnesota Public Service Commission as to the reasonableness of the charges involved.

We are enclosing one copy of Part 192, including recent amendments.

Thank you for your interest in pipeline safety.

Sincerely,

James T. Curtis, Jr.

Enclosure

Regulation Sections