{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-71-026","title":"Indiana Public Service Commission — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1971-02-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-71-026 response to Indiana Public Service Commission concerning 191.5.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-026.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-026.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-71-026","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1971/PI71026.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nFebruary 24, 1971\nMr. D. J. Hendrickson\nChief, Utility Safety Section\nIndiana Public Service Commission\n901 State Office Building\nIndianapolis, Indiana 46204\nDear Mr. Hendrickson:\nThis is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1971, concerning\nthe interpretation of 49 CFR, Section 191.5(2) requiring\ntelephonic notice of a leak that required the taking of any\nsegment of transmission pipe out of service.\nYou described a situation where a short length of pipe is\nintentionally by-passed, so that it may be replaced.\nUnder ordinary circumstances such as occurrence would not result\nin a \"leak\" which we have interpreted as meaning an unintended\nescape of gas. Therefore, when a segment is intentionally\nremoved from service there is no leak which requires reporting.\nWe hope this answers your question. If you have further\nquestions, do not hesitate to ask.\nJoseph C. Caldwell\nDirector, Acting\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ndal\\191.0\\5\\71-02-24","truncated":false,"body_characters":955}