[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5464-5471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-2496]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket PS-118A; Amendment 192-82]
RIN 2137-AC55
Excess Flow Valve--Customer Notification
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule requires operators of natural gas distribution
systems to provide certain customers with information about excess flow
valves (EFV's). Specifically, customers of new and replaced single
residence service lines must be provided written notification about the
availability of these valves meeting DOT-prescribed performance
standards, and related safety benefits and costs. If a customer
requests installation, the rule requires an operator to install the EFV
if the customer pays all costs associated with installation. EFVs
restrict the flow of gas by closing automatically if a service line
breaks, thus, mitigating the consequences of service line failures.
This regulation would enhance public awareness of the potential safety
benefits from installing an EFV.
DATES: This final rule takes effect February 3, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike M. Israni, telephone (202) 366-
4571, or e-mail: mike.israni@rspa.dot.gov, regarding the subject matter
of this final rule, or the Dockets Unit (202) 366-4453 for copies of
this final rule or other material in the docket referenced in this
rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
During 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 if
a service line breaks, and mitigate 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 result in death,
injury, fire, or explosion. Because damage prevention measures are not
foolproof, RSPA has sought an appropriate means to mitigate the
consequences of these incidents. The National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) and others have recommended EFVs to mitigate the
consequences of such incidents, thus, saving lives and lessening the
extent of property damage.
By having an operator inform its customers of the availability of
EFVs for installation at a cost and the resultant safety benefits,
customers can decide if they want the operator to install an EFV on the
service line. Notification giving information on EFVs may encourage EFV
use and, by encouraging such use, may lead to reduced fatalities,
injuries, and property damage that can result from excavation-related
incidents on gas service lines.
Statutory Requirement
In 49 U.S.C. 60110 Congress directed the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to issue regulations requiring operators to notify
customers in writing about EFV availability, the safety benefits
derived from installation, and costs associated with installation,
maintenance, and replacement. The regulations were to provide that,
except where installation is already required, if the customer requests
installation, an operator must install an EFV that meets
[[Page 5465]]
prescribed performance criteria, if the customer pays all costs
associated with installation.
Before DOT prescribed notification regulations, the statute
required DOT to issue regulations prescribing the circumstances where
operators of natural gas distribution systems must install EFVs, unless
DOT determined that there were no circumstances under which EFVs should
be installed.
RSPA is the administration within DOT responsible for implementing
laws addressing pipeline safety.
RSPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (Notice 2; 58
FR 21524; April 21, 1993) (``Excess Flow Valve Installation on Service
Lines''), proposing to require that EFVs be installed on single-
residence gas service lines. During the rulemaking process we 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 where 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.
Sec. 60110, we developed performance standards for EFVs (industry
standards were not then available) to ensure that an EFV installed in a
single-residence gas service line operates reliably and safely. These
performance standards were published as a final rule [61 FR 31449; June
20, 1996].
AGA Petition and Pre-NPRM Meetings
The American Gas Association (AGA) submitted a petition for a
rulemaking on EFV customer notification in which it identified several
issues it believed we should discuss in a notification rule. RSPA
considered AGA's petition (on file in the docket) in developing the
notice of proposed rulemaking. To gain further information before
developing a proposed notification rule, RSPA met with representatives
of AGA, the American Public Gas Association (APGA), NTSB and the Gas
Safety Action Council (GASAC) on August 2 and September 6, 1995. We
discussed AGA's petition and these meetings in the NPRM.
NPRM
RSPA published an NPRM (61 FR 33476; June 27, 1996), proposing
requirements for excess flow valve customer notification. The comment
period closed August 26, 1996. Commenters included industry
associations, local distribution companies, consultants, city and state
agencies, and a federal safety agency.
Advisory Committee Review
In November 1996, RSPA briefed the Technical Pipeline Safety
Committee (TPSSC) on the status and the comments received on this
rulemaking. In December 1996, we sent letter ballots to the TPSSC
members to vote on the proposed rule and the regulatory evaluation.
(The TPSSC is required to serve as a peer review panel and review the
costs and benefits associated with any proposed regulatory standard in
accordance with 49 USC 60102 (b)(3)). We received 11 out of 15 ballots.
These 11 members voted to adopt the NPRM and Regulatory Evaluation.
Seven members had comments, which are addressed below.
The Final Rule
The final rule establishes a new section in the pipeline safety
regulations, Sec. 192.383, ``Excess flow valve Customer Notification.''
The rule requires written notification of customers with natural gas
service lines where EFVs meeting prescribed performance criteria can be
installed. To be consistent with the final rule that prescribed
performance standards for EFVs installed on single-residence service
lines operating continuously throughout the year at a pressure not less
than 10 psig, this rule limits the scope of customer notification to
those customers. Of those single-residence services, the rule further
limits written notification to new and replaced service line customers.
Definitions
RSPA defines a replaced service line as a natural gas service line
where the fitting that connects the service line to the main is
replaced or the piping connected to this fitting is replaced.
RSPA defines the service line customer an operator must notify as
the person who pays the gas bill, or where service has not yet been
established, the person requesting service. Under this 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 person requesting new service
may be the home builder.
What to Put in the Written Notice
This rule requires that the notification contain the minimum amount
of information the statute requires. An operator may 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. The
notice must gear the explanations to the gas consumer, not an engineer.
--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 must 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 if the service line breaks.
--Cost Associated With Installation, Maintenance, and Replacement
An explanation that if the customer requests the operator to
install an EFV, the customer bears all costs associated with
installation, and what those costs are. In addition, the notice must
alert the customer that costs for maintaining and replacing the EFV may
be incurred, and what those costs would be, to the extent known.
Additional Information in the Written Notice
The final rule does not require an operator include additional
information, such as EFV manufacturers' brochures and a consumer
group's telephone number, in the notification. Although we are not
requiring such information to be included, we encourage operators to
include any information that aids a customer's decision making.
When Notification and Installation Must be Made
The final rule requires that one year after the final rule is
published, an operator must notify each service line customer of a new
service line (single-residence service line that operates at a pressure
not less than 10 psig) when the customer applies for service. On
replaced service lines, an operator must notify each customer (single-
residence service line operating at a pressure not less than 10 psig)
when the operator determines the service line will be replaced. If a
customer requests installation, the operator must install the EFV at a
mutually agreeable date.
[[Page 5466]]
What Records Are Required
The final rule requires that an operator must make certain records
available for inspection:
(1) A copy of the notice currently in use; and
(2) Evidence that notices have been sent to the service line
customers (new and replaced single-residence service lines operating at
a pressure not less than 10 psig) within the previous 3 years.
When Notification is Not Required
In the NPRM, we sought comment from operators, state pipeline
safety agencies, their representative associations and others on the
issue of a state or locality preventing an operator from charging the
customer for EFV installation costs. We also sought comment on whether
the waiver process in such a situation would be too burdensome. We did
not receive any comment. Thus, in RSPA's judgment the regulatory waiver
process now in place may be used if a State or local authority prevents
or restricts the gas utility from accepting a customer's payment for
EFV installation costs. 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.
The final rule describes certain limited circumstances where an
operator would not have to notify a customer.
Service lines where the operator will install an excess
flow valve voluntarily or where the state or local jurisdiction
requires installation.
If excess flow valves meeting the prescribed performance
standards are not available to the operator.
Where an operator has prior experience with contaminants
in the gas stream that could interfere with an EFV's operation, cause
loss of service to a residence, or where installing an EFV would
interfere with necessary operation or maintenance activities, such as
blowing liquids from the line.
In emergency and short time notice replacement situations
where an operator cannot notify a customer before replacing a service
line. Examples of these situations would be where an operator has to
quickly replace a service line because of
--third party excavation damage
--Grade 1 leaks, as defined in the Appendix G-192-11 of the Gas Piping
Technology Committee (GPTC) Guide for Gas Transmission and Distribution
Systems,
--a short notice service line relocation request
We have allowed an exemption from notification when an operator
must quickly replace a service line because of third party damage.
Although the impetus for this notification rule was to mitigate the
consequences of service line failures, particularly, when caused by
third party excavators, we recognize that in such an emergency, an
operator may not be able to notify a customer. Nonetheless, although
not required to do so, we urge operators to make their best efforts to
notify customers in emergency situations, so that the consequences of
any future failures may be mitigated.
Discussion of Comments
RSPA received 49 comments in response to the NPRM. Commenters
included two industry associations (AGA, New England Gas Assoc.), 37
local distribution companies, two consultants, seven city and state
agencies, and one federal safety agency (NTSB). In addition, we
received comments from TPSSC members. Of these comments, 12 were
opposed to issuing any notification rule, and the remaining commenters
directed their remarks to specific issues.
General Comments--Twelve commenters were opposed to issuing the
rule. They questioned the reliability, the benefit versus costs, and
the suitability of EFVs to handle the majority of leaks encountered in
a gas distribution system. They argued that our focus should be on
preventing third-party damage, that incidents involving the type of
failures where an EFV is effective are infrequent, and that because
most operators design their load systems for future use, EFVs would
severely restrict load growth.
Two commenters said the typical customer is not well versed in gas
industry technology, safety matters or frequency of service line
failures, and may even be confused when asked to make a decision on
EFVs. Two commenters suggested that verbal notification may be
sufficient.
NTSB pointed out that the statute placed no limits on the type of
customer who should receive notification. NTSB recommended we require
notice of EFV availability to all residential and commercial customers
with service lines that have operating parameters compatible with any
commercially available EFV.
Response--RSPA is following its statutory mandate to prescribe
regulations requiring operators to notify customers in writing about
EFV availability, the safety benefits derived from installation, and
costs associated with installation, maintenance and replacement, and
requiring operators to install an EFV at the customer's request if the
customer pays the installation costs. We considered all comments in
developing final regulations.
If notification contains this minimum amount of information, and is
written for an average gas customer, the customer should be able to
decide whether it wants an EFV installed. If a customer has questions,
an operator should be able to provide knowledgeable personnel who can
explain technical information to a customer's satisfaction to enable
the customer to make a well-reasoned decision about installation.
RSPA determined that it would neither be practical nor cost
beneficial for operators to notify all single-residence customers.
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 economic
evaluation shows 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 customer inquiries 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 will consider extending the scope of notification to
hospitals, schools, commercial enterprises, and apartment buildings
after EFV standards and guidelines are published 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.
Comments on Cost/Benefit Study--Five commenters said that we had
underestimated the costs to comply with the rule. They explained that
the cost of developing a utility-specific notice will be significant
because of the legal, safety, and customer issues involved, and that we
should consider $35 to $45 per hour as the cost to develop and review
the notice. Commenters said many calls would need an engineer or a
supervisor to talk to the customer. AGA said the study had failed to
address who would incur the costs if the customer wants the EFV
removed, or if a properly installed EFV later malfunctions and cuts off
service.
[[Page 5467]]
Advisory Group: One member pointed out that postage costs were not
included in the total cost to notify all existing residential
customers. This member suggested including the estimated number of
customers who would request an EFV in each case, and a cost comparison
of excavation costs for new and existing customers.
Response--RSPA has revised its final economic evaluation in light
of the comments to include the labor costs of preparing and mailing the
notice, and the costs of fringe benefits in the hourly costs. In
addition, we revised the salary estimates of the person responding to
customer inquiries to accommodate concerns that answering such
inquiries may require technical expertise.
RSPA did not include postage costs in its estimate of the cost to
notify existing customers because the notification could be included
with the customer's monthly bill. We also did not estimate the number
of customers who might request an EFV because we have no relevant data.
The cost/benefit study did explain in comparing the costs to notify new
and replaced customers versus existing customers that existing
customers requesting EFV installation might have to pay $500 or more
for installation mostly due to excavation cost. The cost/benefit study
is described later in this document and is available in the docket.
Proposed Section 192.383(a)--(68.9 kPa (10 psig) Threshold)--Six
commenters said that a 68.9 kPa (10 psig) threshold for installing an
EFV should not be used as a notification threshold. NTSB said that EFVs
should be made available to customers having service lines that operate
at pressures as low as 34.5 kPa (5 psig). The other commenters did not
want the 68.9 kPa (10 psig) threshold because if the service line
pressure for each customer is not recorded, it would be difficult to
know if the line pressure will drop below 68.9 kPa (10 psig). Some
commenters suggested that a minimum pressure threshold should be left
to the operator's judgment.
Response--We proposed that an operator notify a customer of a new
or replaced service line that operates at a pressure not less than 68.9
kPa (10 psig) because this is the pressure threshold we had established
for EFV installation in the performance standards. We explained our
reasons for setting this threshold in that final rule [61 FR 31449;
June 20, 1996].
The final rule continues to limit notification to new and replaced
service lines meeting the 10 psig threshold. In making this decision,
we also considered that:
--Most households in the United States receive natural gas from their
service lines between 68.9 kPa (10 psig) to 413.4 kPa (60 psig).
--DOT's incident report data indicates that services in the 34.5 kPa (5
psig) to 68.9 kPa (10 psig) pressure range are unlikely to experience
incidents from outside force damage. (A survey of incidents from 1984
to 1992 shows that one out of 212 reportable incidents occurred due to
outside force damage).
Comments on Section 192.383(a)--(Service Lines Covered Under This
Rule)--One commenter asked if customer-owned service lines were
covered. Another commenter said that the proposed rule was unclear
whether notification should be sent to two customers if both are
supplied from the same service line.
Response--This rule applies to service lines serving a single
residence. One service line serving two or more residents would not be
covered. Customer-owned service lines operating at or above the 10 psig
pressure requirement are included unless one of the notification
exemptions applies.
Proposed Sections 192.383(a)(1), (a)(3) and (b)--(Costs Associated
With EFV Installation)--We proposed that if a customer requested EFV
installation, the customer pay the costs associated with installation
and defined those costs as the direct costs (parts and labor) of
installation. We also proposed that an operator must install an EFV if
the customer agrees to pay all installation costs.
AGA said that Congress clearly intended for the customer to incur
all costs including operation and maintenance. Several commenters
stated that we must follow Congress's intent to require customers pay
for operating and maintaining the EFV, in addition to the installation
costs. Some commenters said that costs must include all incremental
parts, labor and maintenance. They said costs such as repair,
resetting, replacement, and deactivation can be substantial. Three
commenters argued that we have no authority to mandate a costing
methodology because that authority lies with the state public utility
or commission. Some commenters complained that direct costs had not
been clearly defined.
NTSB commented that the language in the proposed rule requiring
customers to pay replacement costs is inconsistent with the preamble's
discussion that operators recoup only the direct costs of installation.
NTSB also pointed out that the experience of the two largest users of
EFVs, who had not had any design-related EFV failure in the last 20
years, supported not including replacement costs.
Advisory Group: Two members said costs should include indirect
costs of installing or replacing the EFV, including maintenance and
replacement costs. One member said costs incurred due to false closure
or other inappropriate operation should be included.
Response--The statute requires that an operator notify its
customers of the costs associated with installation, maintenance and
replacement but that the operator install an EFV if the customer pays
the installation costs. In following this mandate, we are requiring
that an operator notify its customers that costs for maintaining and
replacing an EFV could be incurred after installation and what those
costs are, to the extent known. The notice must also explain that if
the customer requests installation, the customer has to pay the
installation costs at that time, and what those costs are.
RSPA recognizes that the regulatory authority to price gas lies
with state and local public utility commissions. We believe that public
utility commissions will recognize that EFV installation, maintenance
and replacement costs are legitimate costs and allow operators to
charge for those services, to the same extent they are allowed to
charge for other service line services. Nonetheless, we believe that to
carry out the statutory requirements, we should define some of the
costs.
The proposed rule defined installation costs as direct costs (parts
and labor) of installing an EFV. We proposed a limit on what an
operator could recoup for installing an EFV so that an EFV would not be
cost prohibitive. We believe Congress intended gas customers to have a
reasonably priced extra safety protection. In finalizing this rule we
have attempted to clarify the installation costs that an operator
should recoup. Installation costs of an EFV are costs directly
connected with installation of EFVs, for example, costs of parts,
labor, inventory and procurement.
Although the statute was amended to allow an operator to notify its
customers about installation, maintenance and replacement costs, a
customer only has to pay installation costs to have an EFV installed on
its service line. Thus, we believe that an operator may later recoup
maintenance and replacement costs only if such costs are ever incurred.
These costs are not to be included in the initial installation costs.
[[Page 5468]]
Proposed section 192.383(a)(2)--(Potential Safety Benefits)--The
NPRM proposed that notification include an explanation of potential
safety benefits. Eight commenters said that the NPRM did not address
the potential hazards from EFVs, which could subject an operator to
liability if the EFV fails to perform to a customer's satisfaction. One
commenter suggested notification include that an EFV is not designed to
protect against slow leaks, system over pressure, or leaks inside the
house.
We further proposed that the explanation of safety benefits include
that an EFV is designed to shut off the flow of the natural gas when
the service line is ruptured. A commenter suggested changing the
wording to ``in the event'' the service line is severed, because ``when
the service line is ruptured'' implies that a service line will
rupture. This commenter also suggested that the term ``rupture'' be
replaced with ``severed'', as ``rupture'' is also used for material
failures, such as a crack in polyethylene pipe.
Advisory Group--One member suggested replacing ``service line is
ruptured'' with ``damaged service line conditions cause its closure.''
Another member said the wording ``designed to shut off the flow'' is
not accurate as an EFV may not totally shut off flow.
Response--The statute requires notification to include EFV
benefits. The statute does not preclude an operator from putting in EFV
limitations (for example, that an EFV does not protect against slow
leaks due to corrosion, threaded joints, or leaks beyond the meter
assembly).
We have changed ``rupture'' to ``break'', and ``when'' to ``if the
service line breaks'' in the final rule. However, we have retained the
phrase ``designed to shut off'' because it is a performance standard
requirement for the valve.
Proposed Section 192.383(a)(4)--(Notification Language)--The NPRM
proposed that notification be ``in sufficient detail'' and ``in
language easily comprehensible.'' Two commenters said this is a
subjective standard that does not enable the operator to distinguish
between acceptable and deficient language.
Response--We have revised this requirement. We continue to use
performance-based language to ensure that notices are written for the
average customer, not for persons with specialized technical expertise.
Comments on Additional Information That Should be in the Notice--
One commenter said notification should include information that
excessive consumption may cause the EFV to activate. This commenter
said the operator should not give the customer any warranties about an
EFV's operation. One commenter said that gas operators should, in
addition to third party damage, describe all conditions, such as,
earthquakes, lightning strikes, ground subsidence caused by changing
weather conditions, and vandalism, which may cause a pipeline to
rupture.
Response--RSPA disagrees that excessive consumption may cause an
EFV to activate. If the valve meets the DOT performance standards and
is chosen properly based on the service line consumption, then the
valve will not activate unless consumption exceeds 50% above the
maximum flow, an unlikely event. We have used the phrase ``if the
service line breaks'' to acknowledge that other conditions may cause a
service line failure. However, we leave to the operator's discretion
whether to describe all conditions that may cause a pipeline to fail.
Proposed Section 192.383(a)(5)--(Comments on Definitions of
Replaced Service Line & Service Line Customer)--Twenty six commenters
requested further clarification of the proposed ``replaced'' service
line and ``service line customer'' definitions.
Replaced Service Line--We proposed a ``replaced'' service line as
one in which a section of pipe is replaced between the gas main and
meter set assembly. Two commenters suggested a ``replaced'' service
line should be as where a fitting connecting the service line to the
main is replaced or when the service is replaced completely from the
main to the meter assembly. One commenter suggested a ``replaced'' line
as one where at least 50% of the service line is being replaced. AGA
recommended that a ``replaced'' service line refer to a natural gas
service line in which the fitting that connects the service line to the
main is replaced or the piping connected to this fitting is replaced.
Advisory Group--Two members recommended we use AGA's definition of
``replaced'' service line.
Service Line Customer--We proposed that a ``service line
customer'', the person the operator should notify, should be the person
paying the gas bill or where the service was not yet established, the
owner of the property. AGA suggested that where service has not yet
been established, the service line customer should be the person
requesting service. Two commenters suggested the person notified should
be the person requesting service, or where gas service exists and the
residence is vacant, the owner of the property. One commenter said the
person notified should be the builder, not the owner of the property
who signs for new service.
NTSB said the proposed definition does not allow persons at risk,
specifically renters in new housing subdivisions, to decide whether an
EFV should be installed. NTSB said that because our definition limited
operators to notifying builders in new housing subdivisions, we should
require notification of both renters and the owners of the rented
buildings.
Some commenters said the proposed wording could be misread to
suggest all customers must be notified. Commenters suggested using
``each applicable customer'' and define ``applicable customer'' as
those customers meeting the criteria in 192.383 (a). AGA and other
commenters suggested adding another definition to clarify which
customers should be notified.
Response--We have revised the ``replaced'' service line and
``service line customer'' definitions. We have also re-written the
regulation for clarity, to eliminate any confusion over which gas
customers must be notified. NTSB's comment that both renters and owners
be notified would create conflict if one wanted an EFV installed and
the other did not. Proposed section 192.383(a)(5) is changed to section
192.383(b) in the final rule.
Proposed Section 192.383(c)--(30 Day Notification and One Year
Implementation Requirements)--Practically all commenters expressed
concern about the proposed requirement that an operator notify each
customer thirty days before a new or replaced service line is
installed. They said thirty days was impractical and unduly burdensome.
Commenters explained that operators currently schedule and complete
regularly planned service line installations in less than 30 days.
Moreover, operators replace service lines immediately for public safety
and good customer service. Some commenters suggested allowing an
operator to establish its own criteria for when to notify. One
commenter said that we did not clearly state how many times the service
line customer should be notified.
NTSB said the one-year implementation period is too long, and that
six months is more than adequate for the industry to prepare for
compliance. NTSB explained that EFVs are commercially available and
that industry associations are already developing guidance to help
operators draft appropriate notices.
Advisory Group--Two members recommended a 5 to 10 day notification
[[Page 5469]]
period as more appropriate than the proposed 30 days.
Response--RSPA agrees that 30 days advance notification is
impractical and has revised this requirement. Now an operator must
notify a new service line customer (single residence with service line
pressure not less than 10 psig) of EFV availability when that customer
applies for service. A customer having its service line replaced
(single residence with service line pressure not less than 10 psig)
must be notified of EFV availability when the operator determines the
service line will be replaced. If the customer requests installation,
an operator must install the EFV at a mutually agreeable date. In
either case, a customer has to be notified only once.
We have kept the one-year implementation period. We disagree that a
six-month implementation period is adequate for operators to notify
customers. One year is more appropriate for operators to learn which
customers to notify, to draft notices, and to instruct personnel to
handle inquiries.
Proposed Section 192.383(d)-(Recordkeeping)--Six commenters
objected to the proposal that operators keep proof that notices have
been sent to customers within the previous 3 years. They said that
maintaining a list of notified persons will be burdensome and
cumbersome, driving up the record keeping cost. Some commenters
suggested changing ``proof'' to ``evidence.''
Advisory Group--One member argued against any record keeping
requirement because of the difficulty in tracking who was notified.
Response--To check compliance, RSPA and State inspectors will need
to view a copy of the notice operators send customers and evidence that
notices have been sent to customers. This evidence may relate to the
overall notification process, and need not be customer-specific. For
example, a record showing the approximate dates notices are mailed or a
written procedure for the notification process would be evidence
notices have been sent. Therefore, we have not changed the proposed
record keeping requirement.
Proposed Section 192.383(e)--(Exemptions from Notification
Requirements)--In the NPRM, we sought comment and information on
situations where an operator may not be able to notify a customer
before replacing a service line. Seventeen commenters responded to this
issue. Several commenters said that many repairs made to services to
repair minor damage or eliminate leaks involve replacing a short
section of line and not exposing the main, and should be exempt from
the notification rule. The majority emphasized that notification
requirements should not apply to emergency and short notice
replacements, such as when a line has to be replaced because of:
--third party excavation damage
--Grade 1 leaks, as defined in the Appendix G-192-11 of the Gas Piping
Technology Committee guide for gas transmission and distribution
systems (A leak that represents an existing or probable hazard to
persons or property, and requires immediate repair or continuous action
until the conditions are no longer hazardous.)
--a short notice service line relocation request (a short notice
request from the customer or a utility to relocate the service line due
to, for example, a main being relocated, to prevent interference with
new construction, the widening of a street.)
In addition, AGA and three other commenters urged us to exempt a
service line where the regulator/meter assembly is within 3.66m (12
feet) of the main. They reasoned that because third party damage on
shorter service lines is uncommon, an EFV will not serve any purpose.
One operator said it would not be prudent to put an EFV in any part
of the system if contaminants have shown up in other areas of the
system. Another commenter said an operator should not have to send
notification if it found EFV installation impractical.
Advisory Group--Two members recommended adopting an emergency and
short notice exemption. One member recommended exempting notification
for service lines less than 3.66m (12ft), because third party damage is
unlikely on short lines. One member suggested exempting installation in
``impractical or infeasible'' circumstances. Another member said it was
unclear whether a waiver was required for a specified exemption.
Response--We have amended the notification exemptions to
accommodate certain emergency and short notice situations. As explained
previously, although we are not requiring notification in those
situations, we encourage operators to make their best efforts to notify
customers. The consequences of any future service line failures may be
mitigated if an EFV is installed. We have not adopted a short line
exemption. We believe that because an operator is unlikely to have
advance knowledge of a service line's length, creating an exemption for
short lines would serve little purpose. While we recognize that on
short service lines an EFV may offer little or no protection, because
third party damage is unlikely, we believe the customer should decide
whether it wants an EFV installed. An operator may decide whether to
include information about short line protection.
Although we allow an exemption when an operator has experienced
contaminants in the gas stream, we disagree that EFVs should not be
installed throughout the entire distribution system if contaminants
have shown up in other areas of the system. These are probably isolated
instances, unless the operator can demonstrate otherwise.
RSPA believes the listed exemptions should cover most situations.
If in a particular instance, an operator believes it should not notify
customers because EFV installation would be infeasible, impractical, or
unreasonable, the operator may apply for a regulatory waiver.
Comments on Rearranging Sections--Three commenters recommended we
rearrange sections for clarity.
Response--RSPA has rewritten and rearranged the final rule for
clarity.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final 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 final
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 has determined that large and moderate-sized gas operators
will develop their own customer notice. This should take approximately
40 hours at approximately $40 an hour or a one-time cost of $1,600 per
company (40 hours x $40 per hour = $1,600). 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 the required notice will be a one-time cost of
$401,600 (251 x $1,600).
The cost of mailing this notice will be $0.32 plus the estimated
$0.1 copying
[[Page 5470]]
cost for a one-page notice, for a total cost of $0.42 per customer. If
there are 900,000 new or replaced customers annually, the cost of
postage for this notice is $378,000 (900,000 x .42 mailing) per year.
In our draft economic evaluation, we did not account for the labor cost
it takes to mail the notice. One operator suggested 5 minutes per
notice by an employee making $11 per hour with an additional 60% for
fringe benefits, which calculates to $1,320,000 (900,000 x $11 x
1.6 x 1\1/2\ = $1,320,000). The total cost of postage plus labor
would be $1,698,000 annually ($378,000 + $1,320,000 = $1,698,000).
Assuming 10% of all notified customers were to call operators for
more information would result in 90,000 phone calls. Each call lasting
on average five minutes would amount to 7,500 hours (90,000 x 5/60
hrs) spent answering customer inquiries. In the draft evaluation, we
estimated the hourly wage for the person answering telephone inquiries
would be $15 an hour. One commenter suggested that the person answering
telephone inquiries should be an engineer. To reflect that a person
with more technical expertise may need to answer a customer's inquiry,
we increased the hourly salary estimate to $25 per hour plus benefits.
If the employee responsible for answering were paid $25 per hour plus
60% for fringe benefits, the additional cost of these conversations
would be $300,000 (75,000 x $25 x 1.6) per year. The total cost to
the industry will be the one time cost of developing the notice,
$401,600, and the additional cost per year of mailing and handling
inquiries, $1,998,000 ($300,000 + $1,698,000 = $1,998,000).
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 developing an EFV notice. RSPA believes that, with this help, small
and medium-sized operators will choose to use a generic notification
rather than incur the cost of developing their own notice. However,
even with the cost of notice reproduction, mailing, and handling phone
inquiries as described above, we estimate that the cost of developing
the required notice will be minimal for small and medium-sized
operators.
We considered requiring notification of the availability of EFVs to
all customers, not simply new and replaced customers. We rejected this
alternative 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 copying 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 x 5/60 hours). If the employees responsible for
answering these inquiries were paid a salary of $25 per hour plus 60%
for fringe benefits, the additional cost of handling inquiries would be
$17.97 million (5.36M x \1/12\ x 1.6 x $25=$17.97M) to the
industry. Therefore, the total cost of notifying existing customers
would be additional $23.33 million ($5.36M + $17.97M). 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
The main benefit of this regulation is that new and replaced
service line customers will be provided with the necessary information
for them to decide whether they should request that an EFV be installed
on their service line. Other expected benefits from this rule are
increased EFV use, which could reduce the fatalities, injuries and
property damage that can result from excavation-related incidents on
gas service lines.
Although the total benefits of this rule cannot be estimated, RSPA
has analyzed incidents (March 1991-February 1994) involving 2
fatalities and 16 injuries which may have been prevented with the
installation of an EFV. Further, the average property damage from 30
reportable incidents (March 1991-February 1994) involving service lines
where EFV may have mitigated the accident was estimated to be $14,082
per incident (1993 dollars). Updating this for November 1997 dollars
the average property damage per incident is estimated to be $15,739 per
incident.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this evaluation this rule should have
minimal economic impact on industry and the public. The regulatory
evaluation is available for review in the docket.
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 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 final rule contains 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). RSPA has made some adjustments to its hourly and cost paperwork
burden estimates based on comments it received to its draft economic
evaluation. If any commenters have additional concerns that have not
previously been submitted, they may submit their comments directly to
OMB.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the collection of
information. Comments should address:
(1) The necessity and utility of the 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
[[Page 5471]]
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 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: 92,540 hours.
Respondents: Natural Gas Distribution Operators.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 58.2 hours (first
year) 51.9 hours each subsequent year.
Comments on the 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,
D.C. 20503, Att.: Desk Officer RSPA. Persons are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
Federalism
This 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 rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded
mandates reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 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, 60110, and 60118; 49
CFR 1.53.
2. Part 192 is amended by adding Sec. 192.383 to read as follows:
Sec. 192.383 Excess flow valve customer notification.
(a) Definitions. As used in this section:
Costs associated with installation means the costs directly
connected with installing an excess flow valve, for example, costs of
parts, labor, inventory and procurement. It does not include
maintenance and replacement costs until such costs are incurred.
Replaced service line means a natural gas service line where the
fitting that connects the service line to the main is replaced or the
piping connected to this fitting is replaced.
Service line customer means the person who pays the gas bill, or
where service has not yet been established, the person requesting
service.
(b) Which customers must receive notification. Notification is
required on each newly installed service line or replaced service line
that operates continuously throughout the year at a pressure not less
than 68.9 m (10 psig) and that serves a single residence. On these
lines an operator of a natural gas distribution system must notify the
service line customer once in writing.
(c) What to put in the written notice. (1) An explanation for the
customer that an excess flow valve meeting the performance standards
prescribed under Sec. 192.381 is available for the operator to install
if the customer bears the costs associated with installation;
(2) An explanation for the customer of the potential safety
benefits that may be derived from installing an excess flow valve. The
explanation must include that an excess flow valve is designed to shut
off the flow of natural gas automatically if the service line breaks;
(3) A description of installation, maintenance, and replacement
costs. The notice must explain that if the customer requests the
operator to install an EFV, the customer bears all costs associated
with installation, and what those costs are. The notice must alert the
customer that costs for maintaining and replacing an EFV may later be
incurred, and what those costs will be, to the extent known.
(d) When notification and installation must be made.
(1) After February 3, 1999 an operator must notify each service
line customer set forth in paragraph (b) of this section:
(i) On new service lines when the customer applies for service.
(ii) On replaced service lines when the operator determines the
service line will be replaced.
(2) If a service line customer requests installation an operator
must install the EFV at a mutually agreeable date.
(e) What records are required.
(1) An 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:
(i) A copy of the notice currently in use; and
(ii) Evidence that notice has been sent to the service line
customers set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, within the
previous three years.
(2) [Reserved]
(f) When notification is not required.
The notification requirements do not apply if the operator can
demonstrate--
(1) That the operator will voluntarily install an excess flow valve
or that the state or local jurisdiction requires installation;
(2) That excess flow valves meeting the performance standards in
Sec. 192.381 are not available to the operator;
(3) That an operator has prior experience with contaminants in the
gas stream that could interfere with the operation of an excess flow
valve, cause loss of service to a residence, or interfere with
necessary operation or maintenance activities, such as blowing liquids
from the line.
(4) That an emergency or short time notice replacement situation
made it impractical for the operator to notify a service line customer
before replacing a service line. Examples of these situations would be
where an operator has to replace a service line quickly because of--
(i) Third party excavation damage;
(ii) Grade 1 leaks as defined in the Appendix G-192-11 of the Gas
Piping Technology Committee guide for gas transmission and distribution
systems;
(iii) A short notice service line relocation request.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on January 27, 1998.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Acting Administrator .
[FR Doc. 98-2496 Filed 2-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
