[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33476-33480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16384]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket PS-118A; Notice 1]
RIN 2137-AC55


Excess Flow Valve--Customer Notification

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to require operators of natural gas 
distribution systems to notify in writing their customers of the 
availability of excess flow valves (EFVs) meeting DOT-prescribed 
performance standards, the safety benefits of these valves, and the 
costs of installation. If a customer requests installation, the notice 
proposes that an operator will be required to install the EFV if the 
customer pays all costs of installation. EFVs restrict the flow of gas 
by closing automatically when a service line is severed, thus 
mitigating the consequences of service line failures. This proposed 
regulation would enhance public awareness of the safety benefits that 
can be derived from installation of EFVs.

DATES: Comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) must be 
received on or before August 26, 1996. Late-filed comments will be 
considered to the extent practicable. Interested persons should submit 
as part of their written comments all the material that is considered 
relevant to any statement or argument made.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted in duplicate and mailed 
or hand-delivered to the Dockets Unit, room 8421, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Identify the docket and 
notice numbers stated in the heading of this notice. All comments and 
materials cited in this document will be available for inspection and 
copying in room 8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. each business day. 
Non-federal employee visitors are admitted to the DOT headquarters 
building through the southwest entrance at Seventh and E Streets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike M. Israni, (202) 366-4571, 
regarding the content of this document, or the Dockets Unit (202) 366-
4453 for copies of this NPRM or other material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the process of routine excavation activities, excavators often 
sever gas service lines causing loss of life, injury, or property 
damage by fire or explosion. EFVs restrict the flow of gas by closing 
automatically when a line is severed, thus mitigating the consequences 
of service line failures. Despite efforts, such as damage prevention 
programs, to reduce the frequency of excavation-related service line 
incidents on natural gas service lines, such incidents persist and 
continue to result in death, injury, fire, or explosion. Because damage 
prevention measures are not foolproof, RSPA has sought to determine an 
appropriate means to mitigate the consequences of these incidents. The 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and others have recommended 
the use of EFVs as a means to mitigate the consequences of such 
incidents, thus saving lives and lessening the extent of property 
damage.
    By informing customers of the availability of EFVs for installation 
at a cost and the resultant safety benefits, customers can decide for 
themselves if they want the operator to install an EFV on their service 
line. Notification giving information on EFVs may encourage the 
increased use of EFVs and, by encouraging such use, may lead to a 
reduction in fatalities, injuries, and property damage that can result 
from excavation-related incidents on gas service lines.

Statutory Requirement

    Federal law requires DOT to prescribe regulations requiring 
operators to notify customers in writing about EFV availability, the 
safety benefits derived from installation, and costs associated with 
installation. The regulations are to provide that, except where 
installation is already required, the operator will install an EFV that 
meets prescribed performance criteria at the customer's request, if the 
customer pays all costs associated with installation. (49 U.S.C. 
60110).

[[Page 33477]]

    Before DOT prescribes notification regulations, the statute 
requires DOT to issue regulations prescribing the circumstances under 
which operators of natural gas distribution systems must install EFVs, 
unless DOT determines that there are no circumstances under which EFVs 
should be installed.
    RSPA published an NRPM (Notice 2; 58 FR 21524; April 21, 1993), 
titled ``Excess Flow Valve Installation on Service Lines,'' proposing 
to require installation of EFVs on single-residence gas service lines. 
During the rulemaking process RSPA reviewed technical information, 
sought advice from state safety representatives, and analyzed available 
operational data. RSPA determined, primarily for cost reasons, that 
there were no circumstances under which RSPA should require EFV 
installation. As required by the statute, RSPA reported this 
determination to Congress on April 4, 1995. A copy of this report is 
available in the docket. As further required by 49 U.S.C. 60110, RSPA 
developed performance standards for EFVs to ensure that an EFV 
installed in a single-residence gas service line operates reliably and 
safely. These standards were published as a final rule 61 FR 31449; 
June 20, 1996.

AGA Petition

    On July 14, 1995, the American Gas Association (AGA) submitted a 
petition for a rulemaking on EFV customer notification requirements. In 
this petition, AGA urged RSPA to develop customer notification 
regulations that minimize any regulatory burden on gas operators. AGA 
said that the congressional committee responsible for the original 
notification mandate, as well as proposed changes to that mandate in 
current pipeline re-authorization legislation, intended that an 
operator be required to notify a customer about EFVs if the operator 
was installing a new service line or replacing a part of a service 
line, the line would accommodate an EFV, and the operating conditions 
on the line were the same as those prescribed in the performance 
standards. AGA further said that Congress intended an operator be 
required to install an EFV if the customer agreed to pay all the costs 
associated with the installation, maintenance, and operation of the 
EFV. AGA's other main concerns about customer notification are listed 
as follows:
    (a) Operators are concerned about potential liability should an EFV 
fail to perform to the satisfaction of the customer and the customer 
claims that the gas company overstated the merits of the product.
    (b) Because operators may have difficulty determining whom to 
notify if the occupant is not the owner, the regulation should clearly 
identify the customer who is to receive notification.
    (c) The notification requirements should acknowledge and 
accommodate that state or local restrictions may prevent or restrict 
the gas utility's ability to accept a customer's payment for anything 
except gas service.
    (d) Notification should be required only on services where the 
conditions are identical to those in the EFV performance standards.
    (e) Exemption should be allowed from the notification requirements 
where compliance would be infeasible, impractical or unreasonable.
    AGA's petition is on file in the docket and was taken into 
consideration during development of this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Pre-NPRM Meetings

    On August 2 and September 6, 1995, RSPA met with representatives of 
AGA, the American Public Gas Association (APGA), NTSB, and the Gas 
Safety Action Council (GASAC). These meetings were early consultations 
for RSPA to gather information before proposing a notification rule.
    APGA generally had the same concerns as AGA. AGA and APGA again 
recommended that the costs associated with installation include EFV 
maintenance and replacement costs, as well as the initial installation 
cost. As support, they pointed to the proposed change in the pipeline 
re-authorization legislation allowing for such costs. AGA and APGA also 
recommended that RSPA limit required notification to only new and 
replaced service line customers to minimize the burden on operators. 
They explained that because an operator could have difficulty in 
determining if operating conditions on existing service lines are the 
same as those found in the prescribed performance standards an operator 
should be allowed to determine whether to expand notification to all 
its existing residential customers. NTSB and GASAC, on the other hand, 
suggested that a notification rulemaking include all residential 
natural gas customers, as well as commercial enterprises. They pointed 
out that 49 U.S.C. 60110 did not limit notification to single-residence 
customers.
    NTSB also recommended that a notification rule should require 
operators to include brochures from two or three EFV manufacturers, 
along with a consumer group's telephone number, to help customers make 
an informed decision on installation.

Proposed Rule

    RSPA proposes to amend part 192 by adding Sec. 192.383 prescribing 
requirements for excess flow valve customer notification.

Scope

    The statute requires notification of customers with service lines 
in which EFVs that meet prescribed performance criteria can be 
installed. Because the final rule setting EFV performance standards 
covers only EFVs installed on single-residence service lines operating 
continuously throughout the year at a pressure not less than 10 psig, 
RSPA proposes to limit the scope of customer notification to those 
customers. RSPA developed the performance standards from the comments 
and recommendations received during the rulemaking process on proposed 
EFV installation on single-residence gas service lines.
    Of those single-residence services for which performance standards 
were prescribed, RSPA proposes to require operators to notify in 
writing their new and replaced service line customers. This proposal is 
based on RSPA's belief that it would not be practical for operators to 
send notifications to all single-residence customers because 
determining whether EFVs can be installed on existing lines presents 
difficulties (such as lack of relevant records and historical data) not 
encountered on new and replaced lines. Furthermore, RSPA's preliminary 
economic evaluation showed that requiring notification to all single-
residence customers would result in substantially higher costs with 
marginal safety benefits due to the increased time an operator would 
have to spend in responding to inquiries from customers and determining 
operating conditions on existing lines. Because of the increased 
installation costs to retrofit an existing line, it would be unlikely 
that many existing customers would choose to pay the costs of 
installation. Nonetheless, RSPA encourages operators to consider 
expanding notification to all single-residence customers.
    RSPA may consider extending the scope of notification to hospitals, 
schools, commercial enterprises, and apartment buildings after 
publication of EFV standards by the American Society of Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) F17.40 committee and the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI)/Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC) Z380.

Definition of ``Replaced'' Service Line

    RSPA proposes to define a ``replaced'' service line as a natural 
gas service line

[[Page 33478]]

undergoing a repair in which a section of pipe is replaced between the 
gas main and the meter set assembly.

Definition of ``Service Line Customer''

    RSPA recognizes that determining whom an operator should notify may 
be difficult because the occupant of the residence where the EFV may be 
installed is not always the owner. RSPA is proposing to define the 
service line customer an operator should notify as the person who pays 
the gas bill, or where service has not yet been established, the owner 
of the property. Under this proposed definition, the person who pays 
the gas bill may be the tenant, the owner, or a third party. In cases 
where service has not yet been established, such as a new subdivision 
or cluster of homes, the property owner at the time the service is 
installed may be the home builder.

Information in the Notification

    RSPA is proposing that the notification contain the minimum amount 
of information required by the statute. Under the proposal, the 
operator can decide how to word that information as long as sufficient 
information is given to provide the customer a basis to decide whether 
to pay for EFV installation and the information is written in language 
easily comprehended by the average customer. This flexibility should 
address operators' concerns about potential liability problems.

--Meets DOT Performance Standards

    An explanation that an excess flow valve meeting minimum DOT-
prescribed performance standards is available for the operator to 
install on the service line if the customer pays the cost of 
installation. The explanation should make clear to the customer that 
EFV installation is not mandatory, but that if the customer requests 
installation and pays all costs associated with installation, the 
operator will install an EFV.

--Safety Benefits

    An explanation of the potential safety benefits of installing an 
EFV, to include that an EFV is designed to shut off the flow of natural 
gas automatically when the service line is ruptured. The rule proposes 
that as long as the operator describes the benefits to be derived from 
installation, the operator may choose how best to describe those 
benefits.

--Cost associated with installation

    An explanation that if the customer requests the operator to 
install an EFV, the customer bears the costs associated with 
installation and what those costs are. AGA suggested in its petition 
that costs ``associated'' with installation should include initial 
installation, maintenance, and replacement costs of the EFV. Although 
such costs are allowed in proposed re-authorization legislation, RSPA 
is following the language in 49 U.S.C. 60110 that limits costs to costs 
associated with installation. RSPA believes the reason for the customer 
notification requirement was to allow customers to have a reasonably 
available extra safety protection. Therefore, to assure costs are not 
prohibitive to customers desiring EFV installation, RSPA is proposing 
that an operator be limited in recoupment of its costs of installation, 
specifically, to direct costs (parts and labor) of installation. Thus, 
excavation costs for new and replaced services are not to be included 
in the direct cost of EFV installation.

Supplementary Material

    Additional information, such as EFV manufacturers' brochures and a 
consumer group's telephone number, may help customers in deciding 
whether to have an operator install an EFV. However, RSPA believes 
requiring such information to be included would burden operators with 
trying to include every manufacturer's brochure and every applicable 
consumer group's telephone number, or would leave operators open to 
criticism from those whose information was not included. Nonetheless, 
RSPA encourages operators to include additional information, such as 
one or more EFV manufacturer's brochures or a consumer group's 
telephone number, if in the operator's judgment the information would 
aid the customer's decision making.

Time and Frequency of Notification

    RSPA proposes that an operator notify each applicable service line 
customer the later of 1 year after date of publication of a final rule 
in the Federal Register or at least 30 days before the operator 
installs a new service line or replaces the service line. One year 
should be adequate time for operators to learn which customers to 
notify, to draft notices, and to instruct personnel to handle 
inquiries.

Exemptions

    In RSPA's judgment the regulatory waiver process now in place 
should alleviate concern about an operator's recourse if a jurisdiction 
(state or local) prevents or restricts the gas utility from accepting a 
customer's payment for anything other than gas service. To RSPA's 
knowledge, when a customer voluntarily asks for extra safety 
protection, a state or local jurisdiction may not prevent a gas 
operator from charging that customer for providing that extra service. 
However, if an operator is so prevented, it may apply for a waiver from 
the regulation. In any case, because we lack information on how 
prevalent this situation is, we seek comment from operators, state 
pipeline safety agencies, their representative associations and others 
on this issue. We also seek comment on whether the waiver process in 
such a situation would be too burdensome. Similarly, if an operator 
believes that in a particular situation, compliance would be 
infeasible, impractical or unreasonable, the operator may apply for a 
regulatory waiver. Again, we seek comment on this issue.
    RSPA is proposing that the notification requirements would not 
apply in certain limited circumstances--
    (1) To service lines in which the operator will install an excess 
flow valve voluntarily or where installation is required by the state 
or local jurisdiction;
    (2) If excess flow valves meeting the RSPA-prescribed performance 
standards are not available to the operator;
    (3) Where an operator has prior experience with contaminants in the 
gas stream that could interfere with operation of the EFV, cause loss 
of service to a residence, or where the installation of an excess flow 
valve would interfere with necessary operation or maintenance 
activities, such as blowing liquids from the line.
    The burden will be on the operator to demonstrate that any of these 
circumstances prevent it from installing an EFV.
    As previously noted, AGA's petition requested that a notification 
rule allow an exemption in emergency situations. RSPA recognizes that 
in some situations an operator may not be able to notify a customer 
before replacing a service line. However, RSPA does not want such an 
exemption to be used on all repairs. We seek comment and information on 
how to implement and define this requested exclusion. What type of 
emergency repairs do operators see that could justify such an 
exemption? How can an exemption be limited so that it can not be used 
for any repair needing replacement?

Record

    To check compliance, RSPA and State inspectors will need to view a 
copy of the notice operators send customers and proof that notices have 
been sent to customers. Therefore, RSPA proposes that each operator 
must make the

[[Page 33479]]

following records available for inspection by the Administrator or a 
State agency participating under 49 U.S.C. 60105 or 60106:
    (1) A copy of the notice currently in use; and
    (2) Proof that notices have been sent to customers within the 
previous three years.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule is not considered a significant regulatory 
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was 
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The 
proposed rule is not considered significant under the regulatory 
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 
11034; February 26, 1979).
    A regulatory evaluation has been prepared based on the estimated 
expense involved in developing and sending customer notification to new 
and replaced single-residence service line customers.
    RSPA estimates that large and moderate-sized gas operators will 
develop their own customer notice. This should take approximately 40 
hours at approximately $25 an hour or a one-time cost of $1,000 per 
company (40 hours  x  $25 per hour = $1,000). RSPA estimates in its 
regulatory evaluation (based on analysis done for an earlier rulemaking 
on customer-owned service lines) that there are 106 large gas operators 
and 145 moderate-sized gas operators. Therefore, the cost to the 
industry to develop this proposed notice will be a one-time cost of 
$251,000 (251  x  $1,000). The cost of mailing this notice will be 
$0.32 plus the estimated $0.1 copying cost for a one-page notice, for a 
total cost of $0.42 per customer. If there are 900,000 new or renewed 
customers annually, the cost of this notice should be $378,000 (900,000 
*.42 mailing) per year. Assuming 10% of all notified customers were to 
call operators for more information, that would result in 90,000 phone 
calls. Each call lasting five minutes would amount to 7,500 hours 
(90,000 * \5/60\ hrs) spent answering customer inquiries. If the 
employee responsible for answering were paid $15 per hour the 
additional cost of these conversations would be $112,500 (7,500 * $15) 
per year. The total cost to the industry will be the one time cost of 
developing the proposed notice, $251,000, and the additional cost per 
year of mailing and handling inquiries, $490,500 ($112,500 + $378,000).
    As discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation, the American Public Gas 
Association (APGA), which represents municipal gas distribution 
companies (the bulk of small operators), has agreed to assist small and 
medium-sized operators in developing a generic EFV notification. RSPA 
also believes that EFV manufacturers, as well as other large companies 
and state gas associations, are likely to assist smaller gas operators 
in their development of an EFV notification. With this help, RSPA 
believes that small and medium-sized operators will choose to use a 
generic notification rather than incur the cost of developing their own 
notice. However, there will be the cost of notice reproduction, 
mailing, and handling phone inquiries as described above. Therefore, 
RSPA estimates that the cost of developing this notice as proposed will 
be minimal for small and medium-sized operators.
    RSPA considered requiring notification of the availability of EFVs 
to all customers, not simply new and renewed customers. This 
alternative was rejected as not being cost-beneficial for two reasons. 
First, the cost of this rule would be an additional $5.36 million (53.6 
million customers  x  $.10 per copy) just for developing the notice. In 
addition, assuming 10% of all notified customers were to telephone 
operators for more information, that would result in 5.36 million 
additional phone calls. Each call lasting five minutes would amount to 
446,666 hours (5.36 million* \5/60\ hours). If the employees 
responsible for answering these inquiries were paid a salary of $15 per 
hour, the additional cost of handling inquiries would be $6.7 million 
(5.36M * \5/6\ * 15) to the industry. Therefore, the total cost of 
notifying existing customers would be additional $12 million ($5.36M + 
$6.7M). Second, there would be marginal safety benefit as few existing 
service line customers would be likely to request EFV installation that 
could cost more than $500 per service line, mainly due to the 
excavation costs associated with such installation. Therefore, RSPA 
concludes that requiring operators to notify all existing customers 
would cost significantly more and would provide little additional 
benefit to the public.
    Benefits that are expected to result from this proposed rule are 
the increased use of EFVs, which could potentially reduce the 
fatalities, injuries and property damage that can result from 
excavation-related incidents on gas service lines.
    The regulatory evaluation is available for review in the docket. 
Based on the findings of this evaluation this proposed rule should have 
minimal economic impact on industry and the public.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Federal Government is required to determine the impact of its 
regulations on small entities. Based on the regulatory evaluation, RSPA 
has determined that the proposed rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Approximately 1,600 
natural gas distribution operators will be affected by this rule. APGA, 
the trade association of the majority of small operators, has indicated 
it will assist operators in preparing a notification. Additionally, EFV 
manufacturers have also offered to assist operators. It is also likely 
that regional gas associations and large operators will assist smaller 
operators in developing the appropriate notification. All these actions 
will serve to minimize the costs to small operators because small 
operators are apt to use a generic notice created by one of these 
groups rather than incur the expenses of developing their own notice.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM contains proposed information collections that have been 
submitted for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
13).
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed 
collection of information. Comments should address: (1) The necessity 
and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper 
performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the agency's 
burden estimates, including the validity of the methodology and 
assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 
information collection burden on the respondents, including the use of 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques.
    Administration: Department of Transportation, Research and Special 
Programs Administration;
    Title: Excess Flow Valves: Customer Notification.
    Need for Information: By notifying customers that they may have an 
excess flow valve installed on their line at cost, some of the 
consequences of service line failures (fatalities, injuries and 
property damage) could be mitigated.
    Summary: Operators must demonstrate that they have sent the EFV 
notification to their customers.
    Proposed Use of Information: The notification will advise customers 
that

[[Page 33480]]

they may request an excess flow valve be installed on their service 
line at their own expense. Also, by keeping proof that notification was 
sent, RSPA will be able to ascertain that operators are complying with 
this regulation.
    Frequency: Occasionally, once for each new and renewed customer.
    Number of Respondents: 1,590.
    Estimate of Burden: 17,541 hours.
    Respondents: Natural Gas Distribution Operators.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11 hours (first year) 
4.75 hours each subsequent year.
    For further information contact: Mr. Marvin Fell, Office of 
Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 
Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should 
be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice to: the 
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory 
affairs, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, 
DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer RSPA. Persons submitting comments to OMB 
are also requested to submit a copy of their comments to RSPA as 
indicated above under ADDRESSES.
    Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Federalism

    This proposed rule will not have substantial effects on states, on 
the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 12612 (52 FR 41685, 
October 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that this proposed rule does not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

    Pipeline Safety, Reporting requirements.

The Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 192 as follows:

PART 192--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60110, and 60118; 49 
CFR 1.53.

    2. Part 192 would be amended by adding Sec. 192.383 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 192.383  Excess flow valve Customer Notification.

    (a) Prior to installing a new service line or replacing an existing 
service line that operates continuously throughout the year at a 
pressure not less than 10 psig and that serves a single residence, each 
operator of a natural gas distribution system shall notify the service 
line customer in writing that:
    (1) An excess flow valve meeting performance standards prescribed 
under Sec. 192.381 is available for installation by the operator if the 
customer bears the costs associated with installation;
    (2) Potential safety benefits may be derived from installing an 
excess flow valve. Benefits are to include that an excess flow valve is 
designed to shut off the flow of natural gas automatically when the 
service line is ruptured.
    (3) The costs the customer bears shall be the direct costs (parts 
and labor) of installing or replacing the excess flow valve and what 
those costs are.
    (4) The notice shall provide explanation in sufficient detail, and 
in language easily comprehended by the average customer, to provide the 
basis upon which the customer can decide whether to pay for 
installation.
    (5) For the purpose of this section, a ``replaced'' service line 
refers to a natural gas service line in which a section of pipe is 
replaced between the gas main and the meter set assembly. A ``service 
line customer'' means the person who pays the gas bill, or where 
service has not yet been established, the owner of the property.
    (b) The operator shall install an excess flow valve in accordance 
with paragraph (a) of this section if the customer agrees to pay all 
costs associated with installation.
    (c) Each operator shall notify each customer not later than [insert 
date 1 year after date of publication of a final rule] or at least 30 
days before a new or replaced service line is installed, whichever is 
later.
    (d) Each operator must make the following records available for 
inspection by the Administrator or a State agency participating under 
49 U.S.C. 60105 or 60106:
    (1) A copy of the notice currently in use; and
    (2) Proof that notices have been sent to customers within the 
previous 3 years.
    (e) The notification requirements of paragraph (a) of this section 
do not apply--
    (1) To service lines in which the operator will install an excess 
flow valve voluntarily or where installation is required by the state 
or local jurisdiction;
    (2) If excess flow valves meeting the RSPA prescribed performance 
standards are not available to the operator;
    (3) Where an operator has prior experience with contaminants in the 
gas stream that could interfere with the EFV, cause loss of service to 
a residence or where the installation of an excess flow valve would 
interfere with necessary operation or maintenance activities, such as 
blowing liquids from the line.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 1996.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 96-16384 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P