[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2618-2619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1249]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PS-118; Amendment 192-80]
RIN 2137-AB97


Excess Flow Valve--Performance Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This action concerns a petition from the American Gas 
Association (AGA) to reconsider and clarify certain provisions of the 
excess flow valve (EFV) performance standards regulations. AGA's 
request to clarify the rule by deleting language in the regulation 
concerning sizing of the EFV and locating the EFV beyond the hard 
surface is granted because some operators are apparently 
misinterpreting this language. AGA's request to delete the recommended 
installation standards from the performance standards rule and include 
them in the notification rulemaking is denied because such standards 
are applicable to an EFV's safe and reliable operation. AGA's request 
to allow an operator to determine how to identify the presence of an 
EFV in the service line is denied because the final rule already allows 
the operator this flexibility.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni (202) 366-4571, regarding 
this final rule or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046, regarding copies 
of this final rule or other material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31449), RSPA published regulations (49 CFR 
192.381) prescribing performance standards for EFVs used to protect 
single-residence service lines. In a petition for reconsideration and 
request for clarification dated July 17, 1996, AGA asked RSPA to 
reconsider several provisions of this final rule on EFV performance 
standards. On July 30, 1996, OPS and AGA met to discuss the issues in 
the petition.

AGA Petition for Reconsideration

    I. AGA contended that the marking requirement (Sec. 192.381(c)) and 
recommendations concerning where to locate the EFV (Sec. 192.381(d)) 
and whether to install an EFV in certain circumstances 
(Sec. 192.381(e)) are installation standards and should not have been 
included in the final rule on EFV performance standards. AGA maintained 
that these requirements should have been included in RSPA's notice of 
proposed rulemaking on EFV customer notification (61 FR 33476; June 27, 
1996), and subject to notice and comment.
    Response: RSPA disagrees that the marking requirement and the 
recommendations on locating and installing an EFV are misplaced and 
were not subject to notice and comment. RSPA established the EFV 
performance standards as minimum requirements for an EFV to perform 
safely and reliably when installed in a gas piping system. The marking 
requirement and the recommendations on locating and installing an EFV 
were included in the rule because RSPA considers them integral to an 
EFV's performance.
    RSPA recommended the circumstances in which an operator should not 
install an EFV and where the operator should locate the EFV to address 
concerns raised during the EFV rulemaking process. Because these 
recommendations addressed comments that were made during the EFV 
rulemaking process, although not specifically proposed, RSPA considered 
them to be within the scope of the EFV rulemaking. To address 
commenters' concern about placing an EFV in a system where contaminants 
could cause a malfunction, RSPA included a recommendation that 
operators consider this factor when installing an EFV. Similarly, to 
address concerns about protecting the maximum length of service line, 
as well as comments about logistical and economic difficulties in 
installing or removing an EFV beneath a hard surface, RSPA recommended 
that an operator locate the EFV beyond the hard surface and as near the 
gas supply main as practical. Both recommended standards affect an 
EFV's operation and reliability, and are better suited to the 
performance standards rule than the notification rulemaking. The 
proposed notification rule proposes to require operators to notify 
customers about the availability, safety benefits, and cost associated 
with EFV installation, issues not related to an EFV's operation.
    The requirement to identify the presence of an EFV in a service 
line by marking or other means is intended to alert personnel servicing 
the line to its presence. Although not technically a performance 
standard, the requirement is better placed in the performance standards 
rule because it helps to ensure that a service line with an EFV is 
properly serviced.
    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed, RSPA does not adopt AGA's 
suggestion to amend the final rule by deleting these sections. However, 
AGA's additional concerns about the recommendation to locate an EFV 
beyond the hard surface are addressed in section III of this document.
    II. AGA requested RSPA to clarify the requirement to mark, or 
otherwise identify, the presence of an EFV in a service line 
(Sec. 192.381(c)). AGA expressed concern that marking would notify the 
public of the valve's existence to the detriment of the public's 
safety. AGA suggested that RSPA amend this requirement to allow each 
operator to determine the method to identify the presence of an EFV in 
the service line.
    Response: By requiring an operator to mark or otherwise identify 
the presence of an EFV in a service line, the final rule intended for 
each operator to determine how to identify the presence of an EFV to 
personnel servicing the line. The language in the rule left to the 
operator's discretion whether to identify the EFV's presence by marking 
the line, by indicating on maps and records, or by using some other 
method. When, during the meeting, OPS explained that this language was 
not intended to limit an operator, AGA agreed that further clarifying 
language was not needed. Thus, we do not see any necessity for 
modifying the rule.
    III. The final rule (Sec. 192.381 (d)) recommended that an operator 
locate an EFV beyond the hard surface and as near as practical to the 
fitting connecting the service line to its source of gas supply. In its 
petition AGA said that the language specifying that an EFV should be 
located beyond the hard surface could increase the costs of 
installation and reduce the safety benefits of EFVs. AGA explained that

[[Page 2619]]

under the three most common installation and replacement methods 
(trenching, boring, insertion), an additional excavation or cutting and 
resealing of the pipe would be needed to accommodate the requirement. 
Furthermore, the effect of this requirement would be to install the EFV 
further from the service line than necessary.
    Response: RSPA intended in the final rule that if an EFV were 
installed in a service line, it would be located as near the gas supply 
main as practical. RSPA further recommended that the EFV be located 
beyond the hard surface to alleviate concerns raised during the 
rulemaking process that installing or removing an EFV under a hard 
surface would result in increased installation or removal costs. To 
avoid any confusion for the operator about where best to locate an EFV, 
RSPA is deleting the language ``beyond the hard surface'' from the 
rule.
    RSPA continues to believe that if an EFV is installed, it is placed 
as near the source of gas supply as practical to ensure the EFV 
protects the maximum length of service line. Therefore, we are further 
amending the section to clarify the original intent of the rule by 
changing ``should locate'' to ``shall locate the EFV as near as 
practical to the fitting connecting the service line to its source of 
gas supply.'' The clarification continues to allow the operator to 
decide if such an installation is practical.
    IV. AGA argued in its petition that the language requiring that the 
EFV be ``sized to close at * * *'' (Sec. 192.381(a)(3)(I)), has caused 
confusion among operators. AGA explained that because sizing is usually 
done by an engineer, not the manufacturer, an operator could not ensure 
that the manufacturer had sized the valve correctly. AGA recommended 
RSPA delete this language or clarify who bears responsibility for 
ensuring the EFV is correctly sized.
    Response: In RSPA's experience, the language concerning sizing 
should not cause confusion. Nonetheless, to preclude this possibility, 
RSPA is deleting the language ``[b]e sized to * * * '' from 
Sec. 192.381(a)(3)(I).

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not consider this 
final rule to be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, OMB did not review this final rule. 
Also, DOT does not consider this final rule to be significant under its 
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). 
Because this final rule merely clarifies an existing rule, the economic 
impact is too minimal to warrant an evaluation of costs and benefits. 
However, an economic evaluation of the original final rule is available 
for review in the docket.

Executive Order 12612

    We analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria in 
Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism''). The final rule does not have 
sufficient federalism impacts to warrant preparation of a federalism 
assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify, under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not modify the paperwork burden that operators 
already have. Therefore, a paperwork evaluation is unnecessary.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

    Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and record keeping 
requirements.

    RSPA amends 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, 60108, 60109, 60110, 
60113, and 60118; 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. Section 192.381 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i), and 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec. 192.381  Service lines: Excess flow valve performance standards.

    (a) * * *
    (3) At 10 psig:
    (i) Close at, or not more than 50 percent above, the rated closure 
flow rate specified by the manufacturer; and
* * * * *
    (d) An operator shall locate an excess flow valve as near as 
practical to the fitting connecting the service line to its source of 
gas supply.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 14, 1997.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-1249 Filed 1-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P