{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-71-025","title":"I.U.C. Gulf, Inc. — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1971-02-22","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-71-025 response to I.U.C. Gulf, Inc. concerning 195.404.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-025.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-025.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-025","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1971/PI71025.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nFebruary 22, 1971\nMr. M. Cassaway\nManager, I.U.C. Gulf, Inc.\nP. O . Box 6439\nNew Orleans, Louisiana 70114\nDear Mr. Cassaway:\nThis is in reply to your letter of December 9, 1970, concerning the\ninterpretation of 49 CFR, Section 195.404 and Section 195.412(b),\nrelating to inspection of pipelines and asking whether the\ninspection procedures described by you are adequate.\nThe purpose of these regulations is to require inspection for\nchanges in surrounding conditions which may jeopardize safe\noperation of the pipeline and such inspection should consider both\npossible damage resulting from natural phenomena and navigation.\nIt is our interpretation that the steps described in items 1 thru 4\nof page 2 of your letter would meet the requirements of the\nregulations in most instances.\nIf you have further questions, do not hesitate to ask.\nSincerely,\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector, Acting\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\404\\71-02-22\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":964}