# Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-95-055 - **operation:** document - **citation:** PI-95-055 - **title:** Pipeline Safety Interpretation PI-95-055 - **source type:** guidance - **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration - **status:** guidance - **official:** true - **published on:** 1995-12-21 - **effective on:** Not available - **summary:** PI-95-055 concerning 192.16. - **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-95-055.json - **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-95-055.md - **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-95-055 - **source url:** https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1995/PI95055.pdf **body:** <<>> December 21, 1995 SUBJECT: Pipeline Safety Information Mailing ***** ********************** ******************** ******** Customer-Owned Service Lines; Frequency of Notices... A recently published rule requires operators of gas service lines who do not maintain buried customer piping up to building walls to notify their customers of the need to maintain that piping (Docket PS-135; 60 FR 41821; August 14, 1995). The rule requires operators to notify each customer only once, either by August 14, 1996, or 90 days after the customer first receives gas at a particular location, whichever is later. In addition, the rule requires operators to keep records showing that notices have been sent to customers within the previous 3 years. OPS has learned, however, that some persons may be misconstruing this recordkeeping part of the rule to require operators to send each customer a notice every 3 years. Please note that this interpretation is incorrect. The recordkeeping will serve strictly as a measure of compliance with the notification part of the rule. Records of notices more than 3 years old may be discarded. In no way does the recordkeeping requirement demand more frequent notices than one per customer. This clarification of the Federal rule does not consider further requirements an operator may be subject to under a State's regulatory authority. Anne-Marie Joseph, P.E. Project Engineer Compliance and State Programs 192.74 95-12-21.DOC - **truncated:** false - **body characters:** 1465