{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-02-0103","title":"Atlanta Gas Light Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2002-12-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-02-0103 response to Atlanta Gas Light Company concerning 192.605.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-02-0103.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-02-0103.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-02-0103","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2002/g02-12-24_Lonn_192.605-msfX.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-02-0103\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDecember 24, 2002\nMr. Richard Lonn\nChief Engineer/Director\nRegulatory Compliance\nAtlanta Gas Light Company\nPO Box 4569\nAtlanta, GA 30302\nDear Mr. Lonn:\nI apologize for taking so long to answer your letter seeking an interpretation of certain Federal safety standards\nconcerning an operator's discontinuance of service. You specifically requested clarification of a letter of interpretation\nissued by the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) on October I 1, 1978, concerning the safety standard in 49 CFR 192.727(d)\nthat provides that, whenever service to a customer is discontinued, the operator must take one of three measures to\nprevent unauthorized persons from activating the flow of gas in the service line.\nThe 1978 OPS letter confirmed that § 192.727(d) does not apply when a responsible party requests that service\nbe transferred to his or her name with no actual discontinuance of service, for example, when home ownership is\ntransferred from the seller to the buyer. The same letter went on to state that § 192.727(d) does apply if \"an interim\nperiod exists when gas service is not requested by another party.\"\nYour letter sought confirmation of the view that \"the interim period is for services physically discontinued, not\nfor interim periods where the service is left physically on and an accounting procedure takes place.\" Unfortunately,\nthose two alternatives are the two ends of a continuum rather than the two sides of a coin.\nThe 1978 OPS letter of interpretation stated that the provisions of § 192.727(d) apply when an interim period\nexists during which gas service is not requested by another party. An example of such an interim period is when a\nhomeowner moves out of the residence in anticipation of, but prior to, the sale of the property. In such circumstances\nthe premises could be unoccupied and under no one's immediate control for an extended period of time.\nOPS is aware of the industry practice known as \"soft closure\" under which an operator continues to provide gas\nservice to a property during the interval between termination of one customer's account and initiation of the successor's\naccount. Sometimes the service is continued even though no successor has been identified. The Federal standards do\nnot state how soon an operator must discontinue service to a property when no subsequent customer has been\nidentified for billing purposes. There is a general requirement at § 192.703(b) that [e]ach segment of pipeline that\nbecomes unsafe must be replaced, repaired, or removed from service.\" A gas pipeline connected to an unoccupied\napartment in a secure building presents much less of a safety risk than one connected to an unoccupied house in an area\nprone to break-ins, vandalism, or other unauthorized interference. Since these are site-specific considerations, the\noperator must determine on a site-specific basis what actions are consistent with the requirement to remove from\nservice any segment of pipeline that becomes unsafe. Various actions are possible to reduce risks and these should be\nincorporated in the procedural manual required by § 192.605. In any event, the operator's decision to use \"soft closure\"\nshould be guided by considering whether a reasonable finder of fact would conclude that doing so was consistent with\nthe operator's obligation to remove from service any pipeline segment that has become unsafe.\nPlease let me know if you have any further concerns regarding this interpretation. I can be reached at (202)\n366-4595.\nSincerely,\nStacey L. Gerard\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":3709}