{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-89-021","title":"Looper, Reed, Ewing & McGraw Incorporated — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1989-09-27","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-89-021 response to Looper, Reed, Ewing & McGraw Incorporated concerning 192.317.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-89-021.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-89-021.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-89-021","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1989/PI89021.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nMr. Douglas B. Wyatt\nLooper, Reed, Ewing & McGraw Incorporated\nAttorneys\nSuite 1717\nNine Greenway Plaza\nHouston, Texas 77046\nDear Mr. Wyatt:\nyou requested clarification of our August 31, 1989, letter regarding protection for offshore\npipelines. The requirements of 49 CFR 192.317(a) apply to conditions known or that can be\nforeseen at the time of construction. Thereafter, an operator does not have a continuing\nobligation under this rule to provide protection against hazards from changed or new conditions.\nHowever, if the operator learns the pipeline has become unsafe due to these changed or new\nconditions, the operator would have to take remedial action as required by 49 CFR 192.703(b).\nWe would agree that the protection required by §192.317(a) could be any measure considered\nreasonably necessary to guard against foreseeable damage from a foreseeable event, provided that\nmeasure is based on sound engineering judgment.\nSincerely,\n/signed/\nJames C. Thomas\nDeputy Director\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nDB\nC:\\WP51\\INTERPRT\\192\\317\\89-09-27\n1","truncated":false,"body_characters":1061}