{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-80-012","title":"Memo: Internal — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1980-08-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-80-012 response to Memo: Internal concerning 195.436.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-80-012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-80-012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-80-012","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1980/PI80012.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nAugust 13, 1980\nSUBJECT: Interpretation of Section 195.436\nFROM:Associate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation, DMT-30\nTO: Edward J. Ondak\nChief, Central Region, DMT-14\nYour memorandum dated May 9, 1980, requested an\ninterpretation of the security requirements of Section\n195.436.\nAttached is the interpretation you requested.\n/signed/\nMelvin A. Judah\nAttachment\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\436\\80-08-13\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nNo. 80-10\nDate: August 13, 1980\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nMATERIALS TRANSPORTATION BUREAU\n_________________________________________________________________\nPIPELINE SAFETY REGULATORY INTERPRETATION\n_________________________________________________________________No\nte:A pipeline safety regulatory interpretation applies a particular\nrule to a particular set of facts and circumstances, and, as such,\nmay be relied upon only by those persons to whom the interpretation\nis specifically addressed.\nSECTION: 195.436\nSUBJECT: Interpretation of Section 195.436\nFACTS: Your memorandum dated May 9, 1980, requested an\ninterpretation concerning section 195.436. You gave a\nsituation with a tank farm in a rural setting, with a\nhard surface road paralleling the front side of the tank\nfarm, and with no surveillance or monitoring equipment\ninstalled to detect unauthorized entry.\nQuestion: (1) Will either of the following fences meet the\nrequirements of section 195.436?\n(a) A four strand, barbed wire fence surrounding\nthe perimeter.\n(b) A four strand, barbed wire fence on three\nsides bounded by farm land with an eight-foot\nchain link fence on the front side of the tank\nfarm.\n(2) Will hourly inspections of the tank farm facilities\nmeet the requirements of ?195.436?\nInterpretations: The intent of section 195.436 is to provide\nsecurity from vandalism and entry by\nunauthorized persons. Although fencing is not\nnecessarily required, one of the ways to\ncomply with this regulation would be to\nconstruct a fence adequate to protect the\nfacility from vandalism and unauthorized\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\436\\80-08-13\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nentry. A barbed wire fence is generally used\nto control livestock, but would not deter\nentry by unauthorized persons. Hence, neither\nof the fencing options you listed would meet\nthe requirements of the regulation. Likewise,\nhourly inspections will not deter unauthorized\nentry or prevent vandalism and, therefore,\nwill not meet the requirements of ?195.436.\nsigned\nMelvin A. Judah\nActing Associate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\195\\436\\80-08-13\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":2615}