[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