Interpretation Response #PI-85-0101
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Mr. James A. Ryan
Stretch, Lang, Weeks & Cardon
2100 First Interstate Bank Plaza
Post Office Box 471
Phoenix, Arizona 85001
Dear Mr. Ryan:
Your letter of February 20, 1985, asks further questions relating to your letter of January 31, 1985, and our response of February 12, 1985, concerning §192.727.
In response to your first point regarding use of the word “new," which appears in the heading of §192.379, we would point out that the word "new" is not used in the text of the regulation. The content of the text rather than the heading states the safety standard. Section 192.379 has continuing effect according to its text and §192.13, without regard to whether a service line is still new long after installation. There is no time limit in §192.379 concerning when the customer is to be supplied with gas after completion of installation.
Concerning your second point about the meaning of the word "abandoned," the presence of gas pressure is only one element to consider in determining whether a line has been abandoned. For example, continuing maintenance of a pipeline segment would also indicate that the operator intends to use the pipeline in the future and has not abandoned it. In the absence of any countervailing information, we considered the fact that an operator keeps its property, natural gas, in a pipeline which it owns or operates to be presumptive evidence that there is no intent to abandon the line. Of course, this evidence might be overcome by information showing abandonment, but we do not think that a long delay in putting a line into service would have that effect.
We hope that this satisfactorily answers your further concerns.
Original singed by
Richard L. Beam
Associate Director for
Pipeline Safety Regulation
Materials Transportation Bureau
|§ 192.727||Abandonment or deactivation of facilities|