{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-05-0100","title":"Atlanta Gas Light Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2005-04-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-05-0100 response to Atlanta Gas Light Company concerning 192.3.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-05-0100.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-05-0100.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-05-0100","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2005/g05-04-21_Calders_192.3_Abandoned_nlmx.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPI-05-0100\nSempra Energy\n101 Ash Stree\nSan Diego, CA 92101-3017\nMarch 30, 2005\nAssociate Administrator of Pipeline Safety\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nRoom 2103\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nRe: Interpretation of 49 CFR, Part 192.727\nDear Sir or Madam:\nSouthern California Gas Company (\"SoCalGas\") requests an interpretation of 49 CFR, Part 192.727 for\npending litigation. The case at issue is scheduled for trial on June 3, 2005, and the discovery deadline is set for May\n4, 2005. Accordingly, a prompt response is greatly appreciated.\nPresently, SoCalGas is a defendant to a personal injury lawsuit involving a soft- closed meter. The plaintiff\nwas severely burned when gasoline, which she was using to clean her kitchen floor, was ignited by the pilot light of\na nearby water heater. She had recently moved into the house and did not understand that the gas was on. She\ncontends, among other things, that SoCalGas' soft close policy violates the Minimum Federal Safety Standards,\ncodified in 49 CFR, Part 192, et seq., and specifically Part 192.727.\nPreliminarily, SoCalGas notes that the Office of Pipeline Safety has previously issued two letters of\ninterpretation addressing the industry-wide practice known as soft close, and the application of 49 CFR, Part\n192.727 thereto. In 1993, the CPUC approved SoCalGas' soft close policy in a rate-based tariff found in CPUC\nDecision No. 93-12-043. SoCalGas understands the CPUC to be the enforcement arm of the DOT in California for\npipeline safety issues. Furthermore, SoCalGas does not believe CPUC Decision No. 9312-043 to be inconsistent with\nPart 192.727.\nPlease find the following enclosures for your reference: (1) Office of Pipeline Safety Letter of Interpretation,\ndated October 11, 1978; (2) Office of Pipeline Safety Letter of Interpretation, date stamped December 24, 2002; (3)\nrelevant portions of California Public Utilities Commission (\"CPUC\") Decision No. 93-12-043; and (4) SoCalGas' Gas\nStandard 142.0075, \"Closing Meters — Methods and Procedures\" (Soft Close Policy).\nSoCalGas believes that Part 192.727 does not apply to its soft close policy / procedure. Rather, it believes\nthat Part 192.727 applies only to the \"abandonment or deactivation of facilities,\" as its title and subpart (a) suggest.\n\"Abandonment\" is defined in Part 192.3 as \"permanently removed from service.\" Although \"deactivation\" is not\ndefined, SoCalGas understands it to mean a semi-permanent abandonment with the intent to put the facilities out\nof service. SoCalGas believes that issuing a soft close is not an abandonment or deactivation of its facilities, as a\nutility will generally issue a soft close where it closes a customer account while continuing service to the premises.\nThus, the intent of issuing a soft close is not to remove the gas facilities from service, either permanently or semi-\npermanently.\nHowever, even if Part 192.727 does apply to the soft close procedure, SoCalGas believes that subparts (b)\nand (c) thereto do not. Subpart (b) does not apply, because it addresses the exclusive issue of \"abandonment\"\nwhich, as discussed, is not the intent in conducting a soft close. Subpart (c) does not apply, because it specifically\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\ndisclaims application to service lines. Therefore, subpart (d) is the only remaining subpart which may apply to a soft\nclose.\nPart 192.727, subpart (d) provides three methods of closing a gas meter when \"service to a customer is\ndiscontinued.\" Although subpart (d) does not define \"discontinued\", SoCalGas understands that term to mean the\nopposite of \"continued\". As noted above, the purpose of the soft close procedure is to continue gas service to the\npremises (notwithstanding identification of a responsible party.)\nThe DOT's letter of interpretation, date stamped December 24, 2002, appears to indicate that SoCalGas'\ndecision to conduct a soft close is a safety issue. That letter provides:\nOPS is aware of the industry practice known as \"soft closure\" under which an operator\ncontinues to provide gas service to a property during the interval between termination of one\ncustomer's account and initiation of the successor's account. Sometimes the service is continued even\nthough no successor is identified. The Federal standards do not state how soon an operator must\ndiscontinue service to a property when no subsequent customer has been identified for billing\npurposes.... [T]he operator's decision to use \"soft closure\" should be guided by considering whether a\nreasonable finder of fact would conclude that doing so was consistent with the operator's obligation to\nremove from service any pipeline segment that has become unsafe.\nFinally, SoCalGas understands the term \"customer,\" as used in Part 192.727, subpart (d), to mean either the\ncustomer meter set or the physical premises, but not the accountholder.\nSoCalGas requests the DOT's interpretation of the following issues:\n(1) Does Part 192.727 apply to SoCalGas' soft close policy, as approved by the CPUC?\n(2) Does CPUC Decision No. 93-12-043, authorizing SoCalGas to implement its soft close policy, violate\nPart 192.727?\n(3) Does SoCalGas' soft close policy violate Part 192.727?\n(4) With regard to soft close, when, if at all, is SoCalGas required to follow Part 192.727, subpart (d)?\n(5) When is gas service presumed to be \"discontinued,\" as that term is used in Part 192.727, subpart (d)?\n(6) Please provide a definition for the term \"customer,\" as that term is used in Part 192.727, subpart (d).\nThank you for your prompt attention and response to this letter. Your interpretation and insight are greatly\nappreciated.\nWilliam A. Calders\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\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 Regulatory Compliance\nAtlanta Gas Light Company PO Box 4569\nAtlanta, GA 30302\nDear Mr. Lonn:\nI apologize for taking 30 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\ninterpretation issued by the Office of Pipeline Safely (OPS) on October 11, 1978, concerning the safety standard in\n49 CFR. 192.727(d) that provides that, whenever service to a customer is discontinued, the operator mist take one\nof three measures to prevent unauthorized persons from activating the flow of gas in the service line.\nThe 1978 OPS letter confirmed that § 192727(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\ninterim period 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 § I92.727(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\ncircumstances the premises could be unoccupied and under no one's immediate control for an extended period of\ntime.\nOPS is aware of the industry practice known as \"soft closure\" under which an operator continues to provide\ngas service to a property during the interval between termination of one customer's account and initiation of the\nsuccessor's account. Sometimes the service is continued even though no successor has been identified. The\nFederal standards do not state how soon an operator must discontinue service to a property when no subsequent\ncustomer has been identified for billing purposes. There is a general requirement at § 192.703(b) that each\nsegment of pipeline that becomes unsafe must be replaced, repaired, or removed from service.\" A gas pipeline\nconnected to an unoccupied apartment in a secure building presents much less of a safety risk than one connected\nto an unoccupied house in an area prone to break-ins, vandalism, or other unauthorized interference. Since these\nare site-specific considerations, the operator must determine on a site-specific basis what actions are consistent\nwith the requirement to remove from service any segment of pipeline that becomes unsafe. Various actions are\npossible to reduce risks and these should be incorporated in the procedural manual required by § 192.605. In any\nevent, the operator's decision to use \"soft closure\" should be guided by considering whether a reasonable finder of\nfact would conclude that doing so was consistent with the operator's obligation to remove from service any\npipeline segment that has become unsafe.\nPlease let me know if you have any further concerns regarding this interpretation. I can be reached at\n(202) 366-4595.\nSincerely,\nStacey L. Gerard\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":9438}