{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-78-025","title":"Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1978-10-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-78-025 response to Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company concerning 192.727.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-78-025.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-78-025.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-78-025","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1978/PI78025.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nOctober 11, 1978\nMr. James C. Baker\nVice President\nArkansas Louisiana Gas Company\nP.O. Box 751\nLittle Rock, Arkansas 72203\nDear Mr. Baker:\nYour letter of September 1, 1978, requesting an interpretation of §192.727(d) has been forwarded\nto this Office for response. In your letter you state your position that this part of the regulations\ndoes [sic] not apply when a responsible party requests that service be transferred to their name\nwith no actual discontinuance. Your interpretation of this part for this type of situation is correct.\nThe situation you describe is in the nature of an accounting procedure whereby customers are\nchanged for billing purposes but discontinuance of gas service to the premises is not effected.\nPremises is meant to mean the individual house, apartment, place of business, etc., involved and\nnot necessarily the entire building.\nYou also ask whether this regulation applies in a situation where an interim period exists when\ngas service is not requested by another party. In this type of situation, the provisions of\n§192.757(d) do apply.\nThank you for your interest in matters of pipeline safety.\nSincerely,\nCesar DeLeon\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\ndal\\192\\727\\78-10-11\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nSeptember 1, 1978\nMr. Joe De La Funte\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\n6634 Hornwood Drive\nHouston, Texas 77036\nDear Mr. De La Funte:\nWe are requesting your assistance in the interpretation of DOT Regulation 192.727. This\nregulation, in part reads:\n(d) Whenever service to a customer is discontinued, one of the following must be\ncomplied with:\n(1) (2) (3) The valve that is closed to prevent the flow of gas to the customer must be\nprovided with a locking device or other means designed to prevent the\nopening of the valve by persons other than those authorized by the\noperator.\nA mechanical device or fitting that will prevent the flow of gas must be\ninstalled in the service line or in the meter assembly.\nThe customer's piping must be physically disconnected from the gas supply\nand the open pipe ends sealed.\nIn our opinion, this regulation clearly states that one or more steps outlined in (1), (2), and (3)\nmust be followed when it is necessary to physically restrict the flow of gas to a customer's\npremises. We do not envision the implementation of this regulation when a request is initiated to\nleave the service on for a subsequent user.\nThe key point is whether this regulation only applies in a situation where an interim period exists\nwhen no gas service is requested by another party. Our position is that this was a specific intent\nof this regulation and it does not apply when a responsible party requests that service be\ntransferred to their name with no actual discontinuance.\nWe would be most appreciative of your interpretation of this paragraph.\nVery truly yours,\nARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS COMPANY\nJames C. Baker\ndal\\192\\727\\78-10-11\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nVice President\ndal\\192\\727\\78-10-11","truncated":false,"body_characters":3020}