Excess Flow ValvePerformance Standards

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PS-118; Amendment 192-79]

RIN 2137-AB97

Excess Flow Valve--Performance Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: 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. Excess flow valves (EFVs) restrict the

flow of gas by closing automatically when a line is severed, thus

mitigating the consequences of service line failures. In this final

rule, RSPA has developed standards for the performance of EFVs used to

protect single-residence service lines. If an EFV is installed on such

a line, it must meet these performance standards.

DATES: This final rule takes effect July 22, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni (202) 366-4571, regarding

the subject matter of this final rule, or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-

4453, regarding copies of this final rule or other material in the

docket that is referenced in this rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statutory Mandate

In 49 U.S.C. 60110 Congress directs the Department of

Transportation to issue regulations prescribing the circumstances under

which operators of natural gas distribution systems must install EFVs.

If the Department determines that there are no circumstances under

which EFVs should be installed, the Department is to report this

determination, and the reasons for the decision, to Congress. RSPA, on

behalf of the Department, has determined that there are no

circumstances under which the Department should require the

installation of EFVs, primarily because the costs far exceed the

benefits of such installation. RSPA has sent the report of its reasons

for this determination to Congress. The report to Congress (April 4,

1995) and the cost/benefit analysis of mandatory EFV installation are

available in the docket. Costs and benefits are also discussed later in

this document under ``Cost/Benefit Analysis.''

49 U.S.C. 60110 further requires the Department to develop

standards for the performance of EFVs used to protect service lines in

a natural gas distribution system. The development of these standards

is the subject of this rulemaking.

The statute also requires the Department to issue a rule requiring

operators to notify customers about EFV availability and to offer to

install EFVs that meet the performance standards, if the customer pays

for the installation. RSPA will initiate a separate notice of proposed

rulemaking for customer notification.

The Problem

Despite efforts, such as damage prevention programs, to reduce the

frequency of excavation-related service line incidents on natural gas

distribution service lines, such incidents persist and continue to

result in death, injury, fire, or explosion. During the period from

March 1991 through February 1994, 30 incidents with consequences that

might have been mitigated by an EFV were reported to RSPA. These

incidents, mostly excavation-related, resulted in 2 fatalities, 16

injuries, and an estimated $3,249,595 in property damage. Incident

history is explained in the November 1991 and January 1995 cost/benefit

studies evaluating mandatory EFV installation. Because damage

prevention measures are not foolproof, RSPA has sought to identify ways

to mitigate the consequences of these incidents. The National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and others have proposed EFVs as a

means of mitigation.

NTSB Recommendations

NTSB has recommended EFVs as a means of reducing or preventing

injury or death from incidents resulting from service line breaks or

ruptures. Since 1971, NTSB has issued seven recommendations regarding

the use of EFVs in service lines. NTSB's recommendations are summarized

and discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this rulemaking

(58 FR 21524; April 21, 1993).

The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)

RSPA issued an ANPRM (55 FR 52188; December 20, 1990) seeking

information on the desirability of requiring the installation of EFVs

on gas distribution service lines to reduce the damage from service

line ruptures. The ANPRM also contained a questionnaire to collect

current operational data on the use of EFVs by natural gas distribution

operators. The results of the

[[Page 31450]]

ANPRM were summarized in the NPRM and are available in the docket.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

In 1993, RSPA published an NPRM (Notice 2: 58 FR 21524; April 21,

1993), titled ``Excess Flow Valve Installation on Service Lines,'' that

proposed to amend 49 CFR Part 192 to require installation of EFVs on

new and replaced single residence service lines operating at a pressure

of 10 psig or more. This NPRM also proposed performance standards for

EFVs and conditions under which EFVs must be installed. The initial

comment period for this NPRM closed June 21, 1993. The NPRM is

available in the docket.

RSPA received 140 written comments in response to the NPRM: 14 from

industry associations, 1 from an EFV manufacturer, 102 from local

distribution companies, 2 from consultants, 17 from Congress, state

agencies, and regulatory associations, 3 from transmission companies,

and 1 from a group of commenters, designated hereafter as the Joint

Commenters (see below).

The Public Meeting

RSPA held a public meeting on June 18, 1993 (58 FR 33064; June 15,

1993) to enable interested parties to present additional comments on

several of the issues presented in the NPRM. In the notice announcing

the public meeting, RSPA also extended the comment period to July 6,

1993, to allow those not able to attend the meeting to have access to

the transcript. Representatives of the American Gas Association (AGA),

UMAC (an EFV manufacturer), the Gas Safety Action Council (GASAC), the

National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), and

NTSB spoke at the meeting. The AGA representative objected to the

proposed rule, especially to the expected benefits estimated in the

cost/benefit study. GASAC, NTSB, and UMAC supported an EFV rule, but

not as proposed. The NAPSR representative noted that in NAPSR's

experience EFVs have not been cost beneficial.

The Joint Commenters

On December 20, 1993, a group, designating itself as the Joint

Commenters, filed comments that recommended language to include in an

EFV rule. The Joint Commenters included GASAC, EFV manufacturers, and

two gas pipeline distribution associations. Although not a signatory to

the comments, NTSB sent two letters to a pipeline association

supporting the Joint Commenters' recommendations. The NTSB letters are

available in the docket.

The Joint Commenters did not include representatives from the two

major state pipeline safety associations, NAPSR, and the National

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). NAPSR

originally participated in discussions with the Joint Commenters but

later dropped out because NAPSR members oppose a federal requirement to

install EFVs. The comments from NAPSR are available in the docket.

The Joint Commenters recommended regulatory language that their

signatories would support if RSPA were to adopt this recommendation as

a final rule. In a Notice of Reopening Comment Period, RSPA reopened

the comment period to solicit comment on the safety merits of the Joint

Commenters' recommended language (59 FR 39319; August 2, 1994). The

reopened comment period closed October 3, 1994. In addition to seeking

comments on the safety merits of the recommendation, RSPA also sought

comment on: whether to allow EFVs with a bypass feature; whether, and

to what extent, the presence of contaminants in the gas stream should

preclude installation of an EFV; and whether RSPA should delay issuing

a rule until industry performance standards for EFVs are developed.

An additional 70 comments were received in response to the Notice

of Reopening Comment Period: 7 from industry associations, 1 from an

EFV manufacturer, 56 from local distribution companies, 5 from

Congress, state agencies, and regulatory associations, and 1 from a

transmission company. A discussion of the 140 comments to the NPRM and

70 comments to the Notice of Reopening Comment Period and RSPA

disposition of these comments is found below.

Advisory Committee Review

The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) was

established by statute to evaluate the technical feasibility,

reasonableness, and practicability of proposed regulations. The TPSSC

met on August 3, 1993, in Washington, DC, to consider the EFV standards

proposed in the April 1993 NPRM. The TPSSC voted 11 to 0 against

adopting the proposed rule as written. In addition, the TPSSC voted 10

to 1 against RSPA issuing any rule on EFVs. However, the TPSSC voted 10

to 1 to respect the wishes of Congress and to provide support for the

Congressional mandate as implemented by RSPA. RSPA addresses each of

the TPSSC's recommendations in the discussion of comments below.

Petition for Rulemaking

On July 14, 1995, AGA submitted a petition for rulemaking on EFV

performance standards and customer notification requirements. In this

petition, AGA urged OPS to adopt industry performance and manufacturing

standards as soon as they are available and, in the interim, to adopt

the performance standards recommended by the Joint Commenters. RSPA is

not required to consider those comments in the petition pertaining to

performance standards since the comments were received well after the

close of the re-opened comment period. However, RSPA notes that those

comments do not raise any issues not already raised in prior comments

and addressed in this rule.

RSPA will consider the bulk of AGA's petition dealing with customer

notification requirements in the customer notification rulemaking.

Cost/Benefit Analysis (Mandating EFV installation)

RSPA recognizes the beneficial safety effects of EFVs. However,

after extensive study and rulemaking, RSPA has decided not to require

the installation of EFVs, primarily because the costs far exceed the

benefits of such installation.

Many comments to the NPRM and Notice of Reopening Comment Period

cited the need for RSPA to redo the cost/benefit study that had been

prepared to accompany the NPRM. Commenters said incident frequency,

fire and police response costs, and property damage costs were

overstated. The most frequent objection was that RSPA overestimated

property loss and fire fighting costs for incidents with less than

$5,000 in property damage. Commenters pointed out that leaks occur with

greater frequency than incidents and that, by equating leak repair

reports with incident reports, RSPA overstated the benefits to be

gained. Many commenters also said that the $20 estimated cost to

install an EFV was too low.

In light of the commenters' criticisms, RSPA thoroughly reexamined

the cost/benefit study. The revised study included updated data

regarding service line incidents and revised information on related

costs and anticipated benefits. In the most significant benefit change,

RSPA reduced its estimate of the number of nonreportable incidents that

could have benefitted from an EFV installation. Criticisms of its

estimates on nonreportable incidents led RSPA to conclude that the

original estimate, over

[[Page 31451]]

143 thousand per year, significantly overstated the number of

nonreportable incidents whose consequences might be mitigated by EFVs.

RSPA used a different approach to develop a more reasonable estimate,

approximately 13 thousand per year, for the final study. This revised

number of nonreportable incidents is largely responsible for the

decrease in the present value of the benefits from $21.02-$35.00 per

service in the draft study to $7.42 per service in the final study.

In other changes, RSPA revised its cost estimate by using the mid-

point of the cost-range in EFVs. The original estimate looked only at

the EFV cost to the largest current installers of EFVs, whereas the

revised estimate considered the EFV cost to all current installers of

EFVs. RSPA also used newer incident data to develop better estimates of

the consequences of incidents before and after an EFV installation.

As a result of RSPA's reexamination of the cost/benefit study, the

present value of costs changed from the draft study figure of $20.20

per installed EFV with a bypass to a final study figure of $30.29. In

addition, in the final study, the present value of costs for an EFV

with positive shutoff was estimated to be $37.09 per installed EFV.

The final cost/benefit study found the cost of installing an EFV to

exceed the benefits by a 4.5:1 ratio. This result, along with

consideration of other criticisms of a rule requiring installation,

discussed in more detail below, led RSPA to determine that it would not

require installation but would require that any EFV installed meet

certain performance criteria. The final cost/benefit study explains in

detail how each cost and benefit was calculated. Both the draft and

final cost/benefit studies examining EFV installation are available in

the docket.

The Final Rule

The final rule establishes a new section in the pipeline safety

regulations, Sec. 192.381, ``Service lines: Excess flow valve

performance standards.'' For the reasons previously explained, the

final rule does not require installation of EFVs. In accordance with 49

U.S.C. 60110, the rule sets performance standards for any EFV that will

be used in a single-residence gas service line operating continuously

at not less than 10 psig. The final rule incorporates almost all the

performance standards that the Joint Commenters recommended, rather

than those RSPA proposed in the NPRM.

An EFV will have to be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer

according to an industry specification or a manufacturer's written

specification to ensure that the EFV will function properly up to its

rated maximum operating pressure and at all temperatures expected in

the service line's operating environment. An EFV, like any other valve,

will have to comply with subparts B and D of Part 192. The required

tolerance has been raised so that an EFV will be required to close at,

or not more than 50 percent above the rated flow, instead of at the

proposed 10 percent. As commenters requested, an operator will have the

choice of using an EFV with either a positive shutoff or bypass

feature. Upon closure an EFV must reduce the gas flow to no more than 5

percent of the manufacturer's specified minimum flow rate, up to a

maximum of 20 cubic feet per hour for a bypass-type EFV or 0.4 cubic

feet per hour for a positive shut off-type EFV. An operator will have

to mark or otherwise identify the presence of an EFV in the service

line.

Several proposed performance requirements have not been adopted. An

EFV will not have to comply with the requirements of Secs. 192.363 and

192.365 that apply to other service line valves. Service line capacity

will not have to exceed the manufacturer's EFV flow rating by 50

percent. An EFV will not be required to be tested upon installation and

each time a customer's meter is removed or replaced, or to close

automatically if the customer's meter, regulator or service valve is

sheared off. Furthermore, an operator will not be required to verify

the rated flow or replace an EFV that does not close automatically.

The final rule recommends 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 to ensure that the EFV

protects the maximum length of service line and to assist in locating

the EFV. The final rule also recommends that to augment performance

reliability, an operator not install an EFV where the contaminants in

the gas stream will cause the valve to malfunction or interfere with

necessary operation and maintenance activities on the service line,

such as blowing liquids from the line.

Discussion of Comments

Although comments were submitted in response to the proposal to

require installation of EFVs, these comments were also relevant to

developing a performance standards rule. Many of the comments focussed

on the performance criteria RSPA included in the proposal.

General Comments--Except for NTSB, valve manufacturers, and GASAC,

virtually all of the 140 commenters to the NPRM objected to the

proposed rule on installation. The major objections were that EFV

installation should not be federally mandated, that each state pipeline

authority should be allowed to establish the rules for its state; that

a positive shutoff EFV should not be required; that testing an EFV

while in service is unnecessary and overly expensive; that EFV

installation should be delayed until industry standards are developed;

and, that the cost/benefit study supporting the proposed rule is

flawed. The majority of commenters also maintained that EFV

installation should not be required where contaminants could cause the

EFV to malfunction and inadvertently shutoff service to the customer.

Nearly all of the 70 commenters responding to the Notice of

Reopening Comment Period proposed that RSPA adopt the Joint Commenters'

recommendations on performance language because the recommended

language was less objectionable than the NPRM's proposed language. The

commenters also favored giving an operator the option to install either

a bypass or positive shutoff EFV. Overall, because of concerns about

EFV reliability, gas distribution operators favored waiting until

industry standards are developed and accepted before requiring

installation of EFVs. Many commenters restated their objection to the

findings of the cost/benefit study.

Six large operators operating at least 9 million service lines (18

percent of all U.S. service lines) opposed both the NPRM's proposal and

the Joint Commenters' recommendations. The operators' major objections

were that the cost/benefit study grossly overstated benefits, that

industry standards are needed because EFVs do not operate reliably, and

that costs to remove EFVs after a malfunction are high.

Comments about the cost/benefit study have previously been

discussed. Other general comments are discussed below, as well as

specific comments about each RSPA-proposed performance standard and the

associated Joint Commenters' recommendation. To avoid repetition,

similar comments are discussed in only one section.

Discussion on State vs. Federal Mandate

Comments--NAPSR expressed opposition to any federal mandate to

install EFVs, arguing that any such regulatory requirements should be

at the state level. On two occasions NARUC passed resolutions proposing

that any requirement for EFVs be determined by

[[Page 31452]]

the individual state pipeline safety agencies. The NARUC Subcommittee

for Pipeline Safety polled the state regulatory agencies, gathered

data, and prepared a report of its findings. NARUC found that only two

states, Massachusetts and New York, favored a federal mandate to

install EFVs.

Six major operators (three operating in California) opposed any

federal requirement to install EFVs, arguing that states should be

allowed to determine the need for EFVs based on state- developed

criteria.

Response--Because of RSPA's decision not to issue a rule requiring

the installation of EFVs, each state will be able to determine if it

should require such installation based on circumstances unique to that

state.

Industry Standards

In the absence of standards by an industry-sponsored safety

standards committee, RSPA proposed several requirements for the

manufacture and operation of any EFV that would be installed in a

single-residence gas service line. The Joint Commenters' recommendation

also included performance standards for single- residence gas service

lines.

Comments on NPRM--Many commenters said RSPA should not issue a

final rule until industry manufacturing and performance safety

standards are prepared and adopted. The TPSSC recommended that RSPA

initiate the development of standards by The American National

Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society of Testing Materials

(ASTM), or other nationally recognized and accredited organization for

the manufacture, testing, and operation of EFVs. The TPSSC further

recommended that when such standards are enacted, RSPA should issue an

NPRM for EFVs incorporating such standards for TPSSC review. The Gas

Piping Technology Committee (GPTC) commented that its ANSI/GPTC Z380

committee was developing performance, operating, and installation

guidelines for EFVs. GPTC said guidance will be offered on choosing

operating pressure ranges, flow rates, bleed-by, and reset

characteristics, length and diameter of service piping, inline

contaminants, purging procedures, joining methods, and service line

locations.

Comments to Notice of Reopening Comment Period--Many commenters

said RSPA should take no final action until industry standards are

available because standards would assure EFV reliability. Many others

said RSPA should issue a final rule but grant a one year delay in

implementation to give the industry committees time to complete

manufacturing and operational standards. Several commenters said the

ASTM F17 committee is preparing testing standards and the ANSI/GPTC

Z380 committee is preparing guidelines that should be completed in

1995.

Response--RSPA agrees that to achieve performance reliability and

the desired safety benefits, specifications are necessary to ensure

uniformity among EFVs installed in service lines. Because the NPRM

proposing required installation only sought comment on performance

standards applicable to EFVs installed in single-residence service

lines, this final rule limits EFV performance standards to that

application. Once industry standards are developed for EFVs used in

other applications, such as multiple residences and commercial

enterprises, RSPA will consider seeking comment on proposed performance

standards for those applications.

The final rule requires that when an EFV is installed in a single

residence service line, the EFV must be manufactured and tested by the

manufacturer according to an industry specification, or to a

manufacturer's written specification to ensure the EFV performs

specified minimum functions. These specifications will ensure that an

EFV functions properly up to the maximum operating pressure at which it

is rated and at all temperatures reasonably expected in the service

line's operating environment. These specifications will further ensure

that an EFV is sized to close within 50 percent of the rated closure

rate, to reduce gas flow upon closure to specified rates, and to not

close when the pressure and flow rates are less than the manufacturer's

specified minimums.

In addition, an EFV must comply with the general requirements of

Subparts B and D of part 192. While subparts B and D do not include

operational requirements specific to an EFV, they do include general

material and design standards applicable to any valve in a pipeline

system.

Many commenters, including several industry committees, indicated

that EFV standards are forthcoming. However, until industry finalizes

EFV standards, the requirement that an EFV perform specified functions

according to a manufacturer's written specifications will ensure that

an EFV performs reliably and safely. Moreover, final industry

performance specifications are likely to be similar to manufacturers'

specifications, because valve manufacturers are often members of the

industry organizations that develop such specifications.

Proposed Section 192.381(a)--(regarding Secs. 192.363 and 192.365

gas pipeline valve requirements)--RSPA proposed in the NPRM that EFVs

must comply with the requirements of Secs. 192.363 and 192.365. These

existing sections establish requirements for all valves in gas service

lines.

Comments--Several commenters stated that Secs. 192.363 and 192.365

should not apply to EFVs. Commenters pointed out that these

requirements apply to the design of service line manual shut-off valves

and would conflict with the proposed EFV requirements. For example,

commenters noted that the Sec. 192.365(c) requirement to locate valves

in a covered durable box or standpipe is intended to allow for ready

operation of a service line manual shut-off valve. Therefore, it would

be unnecessary and costly to apply this requirement to an EFV, which is

an automatic valve not requiring access for manual operation.

Response--After further study, RSPA agrees that valve requirements

concerning the use of a durable box or standpipe do not apply to EFVs,

and the other requirements of Secs. 192.363 and 192.365 apply only to

manual shut-off type valves, not EFVs. Accordingly, the proposed

requirement that EFVs comply with Secs. 192.363 and 192.365 has not

been adopted.

Proposed Section 192.381(a)--(10 psig requirement)-RSPA proposed

that an EFV be installed on each newly installed or replaced single

residence service line that operates at a pressure not less than 10

psig.

Comments--Many commenters to both the NPRM and the Notice of

Reopening Comment Period requested clarification of the 10 psig

threshold. Many commenters asked if the requirement would apply if

pressure in the pipeline system drops below 10 psig at any time during

the year.

Response--RSPA is not requiring operators to install EFVs on any

single-residence service line, whatever its operating pressure.

However, RSPA does not want an EFV, if installed, to cause a loss in

service, especially at a time when the service is most needed by the

consumer, such as during the winter heating season. Thus, the

performance standards have been established for EFVs that are installed

on a service line that operates at or above 10 psig continuously during

the year. Setting the performance standards at this threshold is

influenced by two of the largest users of EFVs who, as standard

practice, limit EFV installation to service lines in systems where

service line inlet pressure does not drop below 10 psig during the

year.

[[Page 31453]]

Because service line pressure will most likely be at its lowest

level during the coldest weather, especially in colder climates, an

operator should consider the pressure drop in the service line due to

the restriction of gas flow caused by an EFV. If pressure drop is

considered, an EFV should not cause a reduction in safety or loss of

service in any service line.

Proposed Section 192.381(a)--(replaced service lines)--RSPA

proposed that EFVs be installed on certain new and replaced service

lines.

Response--This proposal is no longer relevant since EFV

installation is not being required.

Proposed Section 192.381(b)(1)--(installation)--RSPA proposed in

the NPRM that an EFV be installed as close to the main or transmission

line as practicable. The Joint Commenters recommended installation in

or as near as practicable to the service line fitting connecting the

service line to its gas supply.

Comments--Many commenters suggested RSPA remove any reference to

transmission lines in the rule. Several commenters said EFVs are not

available that will withstand transmission line pressures. Others

stated that the statutory mandate was intended to apply only to

distribution systems. The TPSSC voted 7 to 4 that all references to

transmission lines be dropped from the proposed rule.

A few commenters objected to what they thought was the proposed

requirement to install EFVs immediately downstream of the service-to-

main connection when the line serves more than one residence (branch

service). Other commenters were concerned that the proposed rule would

require EFV installation below hard surfaces such as asphalt or

concrete, making installation very costly.

Response--In the NPRM, RSPA intended that all new and replaced

service lines, whether from a main or transmission line, where the

source of gas supply consistently operates above 10 psig, be required

to have an EFV installed. The reference to ``main'' and

``transmission'' lines was intended to cover farm taps, as farm taps

are also subject to the type of incident that could benefit from an

EFV. The final rule deletes the reference to ``main'' and

``transmission'' and sets performance standards for EFVs installed on

single-residence gas service lines. By referring to ``service'' line,

RSPA intends for the standards to apply if an EFV is installed on a

farm tap. A farm tap operates as a service line when a local

distribution company operates a metered farm tap on a transmission line

delivering gas to a farmer or other landowner. Accordingly, although

the rule does not require installation on any single-residence service

line, an EFV that meets the required performance standards can be

installed on a service line from a main or a branch off a transmission

line.

RSPA never intended that an EFV serve more than one family

residence. RSPA recognizes that an EFV would be difficult to size when

the gas supply is serving multiple residences because of widely varying

gas volume through the EFV. Because of this difficulty, the performance

standards in this final rule are limited to EFVs that are installed on

single-residence service lines.

RSPA agrees that removing an EFV under a hard surface would be

overly expensive if an EFV failed to function. Therefore, RSPA

recommends that an EFV be located beyond the hard surface and as near

as practical to the fitting connecting the service line to its source

of gas supply.

Proposed Section 192.381(b)(2)--(Section 192 Subparts B & D)--As

noted above, the NPRM proposed and the Joint Commenters recommended

that EFVs meet the applicable requirements of subparts B and D of part

192.

Comments--No substantive comments were received on this proposal.

Response--Subpart B establishes minimum requirements for selection

and qualification of materials to be used in pipelines. Subpart D

prescribes minimum requirements for the design and installation of

pipeline components and facilities. Since these requirements are

general performance requirements that apply to all valves, they are

included in the performance requirements applicable to EFVs.

Proposed Section 192.381(b)(3)--(bypass)--RSPA proposed that an EFV

be designed to prevent pressure equalization across the EFV after the

EFV closes, thereby prohibiting an operator from installing an EFV with

a bypass feature. The bypass feature allows pressure to equalize and

the EFV to automatically reopen after closure because it allows a small

amount of gas to pass through the EFV. In contrast, a positive shutoff

feature allows only minute amounts of gas to pass through the EFV after

it closes, and requires backpressuring downstream to reset the EFV. The

Joint Commenters' recommendation would allow either type of EFV.

In the Notice of Reopening Comment Period, RSPA sought comment on

the safety of using EFVs with or without the bypass feature and gave

two examples, provided by two large local distribution operators, of

potential dangers that might be caused by the bypass feature. RSPA also

asked for comments on the conditions under which automatically

resetting EFVs should or should not be required in residential service

lines and on the linkage between the bypass feature and unauthorized

repairs to damaged service lines.

Comments to NPRM--Many commented on the proposal prohibiting the

use of EFVs with a bypass feature. Commenters, including several at the

public meeting, were virtually unanimous in favor of an operator having

the option to select an EFV with either the bypass or positive shutoff

feature. Similarly, the TPSSC voted 9 to 2 in favor of an operator

having this option.

Various reasons were given for not prohibiting the installation of

bypass EFVs. Several commenters, including an industry association,

complained that RSPA proposed the positive shutoff requirement without

sufficient justification in the cost/benefit study. One commenter said

that additional costs of at least $250 per utility crew would be

incurred to provide backpressure downstream of the EFV to equalize the

pressure and reset the valve. This commenter said these services would

necessitate extra equipment, including a compressed natural gas tank or

portable natural gas compressor, and additional piping, fittings, and

hoses. Other commenters mentioned additional hazards to personnel in

hauling and connecting compressed natural gas. Another commenter was

concerned with customer inconvenience because a service call would be

necessary to backpressure the EFV, delaying restoration of service.

Many commenters argued that bypass-type EFVs do not pose a

significant safety risk. Commenters maintained that operators that

regularly install EFVs have had no incidents resulting from use of

bypass-type EFVs. Three of the largest voluntary users of EFVs (with

over 300,000 EFVs in service) commented that their data did not show an

incident having occurred due to a bypass- type EFV. An EFV manufacturer

commented that it has no knowledge of bypass gas ever contributing to a

natural gas incident. NTSB and many operators echoed these assurances.

Several commenters, including EFV users, said RSPA's concern that

the bypass feature would allow irresponsible excavators to make repairs

is unfounded. A few commenters said that positive shutoff EFVs would

cause more safety problems than bypass-type EFVs because an excavator

could sever a service line unknowingly if the

[[Page 31454]]

positive shutoff were to completely stop the gas flow and any released

odor from reaching the atmosphere. Conversely, these commenters argued

that a failed service line with a bypass would continuously release gas

and leave a readily detectable odor. Commenters noted other potential

problems with positive shutoff EFVs. For example, a commenter in Alaska

pointed out that an earthquake in the winter could cause EFVs to engage

and, if positive shutoff EFVs were used, each would have to be

backpressured and each customer's appliance re-lighted. During an

Alaskan winter this could take days.

The Gas Research Institute (GRI) stated that its tests of EFV

models showed all the tested models were affected by pressure surges of

5 psi or more and that opening, closing, or throttling a main line

valve could activate an EFV, causing a false closure. The research

organization said RSPA could infer from these results that the use of

EFVs without the bypass could cause extended distribution service

outages. GRI further stated that it knows of no reports of bypass flow

in an EFV having led to or increased the severity of an accident.

GASAC commented that RSPA should allow each operator to determine

the type of valves for its system. Other commenters echoed this

statement. Even among those operators opposed to a mandatary rule, most

said that if a rule were issued, the choice of which type of EFV to use

should be left to the operator.

Comments on the Joint Commenters' Recommendation - Many commenters

supported the Joint Commenters' recommendation to allow the use of a

bypass-type EFV. Many commenters said it is not appropriate to depend

on an EFV's design to prevent unauthorized repairs. Rather,

unauthorized repairs should be controlled by stiffer penalties and

better enforcement of damage prevention laws. These commenters

maintained that EFVs are used to provide safety when a service line is

severed, and should not be expected to perform functions beyond their

intended purpose.

Many commenters said excavators who damage service lines may make

unauthorized repairs regardless of whether a bypass-type EFV, a

positive shutoff EFV, or no EFV is installed. RSPA recognizes the

validity of this statement and that EFVs with either feature are not

likely to have a substantial effect in either reducing or increasing

the frequency of unauthorized repairs on a broken service line.

To dispel RSPA's concern about the potential danger of bypass- type

EFVs and gas discharge into a residence, an operator explained that

since natural gas is only about 0.6 times the density of air, any raw

gas passing through a vented appliance would exhaust to the atmosphere

through the chimney. The operator concluded that household gas ranges

(or space heaters) without burner safety pilots are the only paths for

raw gas to disperse through a building. The operator cited a recent

study by NOVA, a Canadian chemical and pipeline company, that

demonstrated that a rate of raw gas buildup in a small residence (300

square feet) would have to be about 60 cubic feet per hour to reach an

ignitable level in five hours. This allows a five hour period for

someone to discover the gas release before the ignitable level is

reached. A bypass-type EFV allows 20 cubic feet of gas per hour.

Therefore, natural gas that is passing through an EFV with a bypass

would take several hours to accumulate to the ignitable range in a

building.

Response--RSPA has been concerned that excavators could repair a

service line break equipped with an EFV with a bypass feature, the EFV

would automatically reset, and service would be restored without the

operator knowing that the line had been damaged. Consequently, gas

could then pass into and accumulate in a residence where the pilot

light on a gas appliance had been extinguished during the service line

break.

RSPA was also concerned that restoration of gas service with

unvented appliances would cause a rapid buildup of the gas/air mixture

to an ignitable level. Commenters have posed circumstances under which

such a buildup could occur. However, in response to its questions about

this problem, RSPA did not receive any information that such an

incident has actually occurred. Furthermore, an EFV manufacturer and

AGA have assured RSPA that bypass-type EFVs operate properly to avoid

unintended gas buildup within a building. An operator with 20,000

installed bypass-type EFVs stated that bypass gas from a tripped EFV

had never caused or contributed to an unsafe situation on its system.

Other operators made comparable statements. The NOVA study, described

above, further allays RSPA's concern. Therefore, based on the record in

this rulemaking, RSPA accepts the premise that EFVs with a bypass

feature are safe.

RSPA also finds acceptable the Joint Commenters' recommendation to

limit gas flow to 20 cubic feet per hour for bypass-type EFVs and to

0.4 cubic feet per hour for positive shutoff-type EFVs. Because EFVs

with positive shutoff features were proposed in the NPRM, RSPA did not

propose EFV flow limits. However, RSPA agrees that the limits

recommended by the Joint Commenters are reasonable and feasible design

requirements.

Accordingly, the final rule allows either bypass or positive

shutoff EFVs. Closure flow rates will be limited to 20 cubic feet per

hour for the bypass-type EFV and 0.4 cubic feet per hour for the

positive shutoff EFV.

Proposed Section 192.381(b)(4)--(installation testing)--RSPA

proposed that upon original installation of an EFV and each time the

meter is removed or replaced, the EFV be tested to determine if it

closes automatically. The Joint Commenters' recommendation deleted the

requirement.

Comments--All 37 commenters on this proposed requirement asked that

it be deleted. Most commenters stated that the test would require that

the service line be disconnected from the meter set, the service valve

at the meter opened, and gas vented to the atmosphere to trip the EFV.

Many commenters said that venting of the gas near the residence, or

inside the residence when the meter is indoors, would be hazardous and

would needlessly release methane into the atmosphere contrary to the

goals of the Clean Air Act.

An EFV user stated that it does not test the EFV when replacing

meters. This commenter stated that it replaces one-tenth of its meters

annually and provided RSPA a summary of the steps involved in testing

an EFV when a meter is replaced on an existing service. This commenter

further stated it would take a two person crew a full day to test an

EFV, resulting in substantial cost with no corresponding benefit. The

American Public Gas Association (APGA) commented that the proposed

testing would add significantly to the costs of using EFVs with no

corresponding safety benefits and noted that these costs were not

included in the cost/benefit analysis.

Several other commenters also noted that this proposed requirement

had not been covered in the cost/benefit analysis and provided data on

the costs that would be incurred for such tests. AGA estimated that 3

million services have meters removed each year, so that the tests could

cost $100 million per year, doubling RSPA's estimated installation cost

of $20 per EFV (with bypass feature). These same commenters contended

that testing positive shutoff EFVs would cost even more.

AGA and other commenters concluded that such tests would require

removing the service regulator or

[[Page 31455]]

installing a fitting to allow gas to be vented upstream of the service

regulator because the flow of gas passing through a service regulator

may be too small to cause the EFV to trip. These commenters said that

such a fitting would invite a resident to bypass the meter and steal

gas.

The TPSSC voted 8 to 2 that no in-service testing of an EFV be

required.

Response--Based on the comments about problems and costs of

installation testing, the final rule will not require an operator to

test the EFV when the EFV is installed or when the meter is removed or

replaced. However, the requirement that the EFV must be manufactured

and tested to an industry specification or manufacturer's written

specification to ensure that the EFV functions properly up to the rated

maximum operating pressure will certainly require random sample testing

at the manufacturer's plant. Such sample testing is routinely conducted

for all other valves in accordance with manufacturing standards.

Proposed Section 192.381(b)(5)--(automatic closure)--RSPA proposed

that an EFV must close automatically if the service line is severed or

if the customer's meter, regulator, or service valve is sheared off.

The Joint Commenters' recommendation did not include such a

requirement.

Comments--All seventeen commenters on this proposed requirement

argued that it should be deleted. Most commenters stated that operators

cannot guarantee that an EFV will perform as designed and warranted by

the manufacturer. One commenter said that it would be difficult to

comply with such a requirement because EFVs often fail to activate (due

to fluid friction) in longer service line lengths of \1/2\-inch pipe.

Also, even if the meter set is sheared off, the flow rate may not

exceed the EFV activation flow rate because the pipe may be squeezed

off at the point where it is sheared, or because there are other

restrictions in the line.

One EFV user stated that costs for assuring that an EFV closes

automatically would approach $1,000 per installation. This commenter

reasoned that an EFV is intended to help reduce the effects of dig-ins

on a service line in the area of the street, where most excavation

takes place, and requiring the EFV to do more than intended will

increase costs.

The TPSSC voted 7 to 3 that the proposed requirement be changed so

that an EFV ``be designed to close automatically if the service line is

ruptured downstream of the valve.''

Response--RSPA agrees with the commenters that flow rate may not

always exceed an EFV's activation flow rate because a long service line

could cause excessive pressure drop, or a line could be squeezed off at

the point where it is sheared, or there could be other restrictions in

the line. Therefore, RSPA is not including proposed Sec. 192.381(b)(5)

in the performance standards. However, the final rule (Sec. 192.381(c))

requires that an EFV be manufactured according to an industry

specification or manufacturer's written specification that will

establish shutoff requirements for conditions comparable to a service

line being severed or a meter set being sheared off.

Proposed Section 192.381(b)(6)--(sizing)--RSPA proposed that an EFV

be sized to close within 10 percent of the rated flow specified by the

manufacturer. The Joint Commenters recommended a closure rate not less,

and not more than 50 percent higher, than the manufacturer's specified

closure flow rate.

Comments to NPRM--The 32 commenters objected to this requirement.

Most commenters suggested that the proposed 10 percent tolerance be

raised to 50 percent because EFVs are not precision instruments. Some

commenters suggested a 25 percent tolerance. Most commenters said that

EFVs with 10 percent tolerance are not commercially available and would

be significantly more expensive. GASAC also opposed the requirement as

excessive.

AGA provided exhaustive information showing that EFVs with a 10

percent tolerance are not commercially available and may not be

possible to mass produce. AGA suggested a 50 percent tolerance and

cited a Gas Research Institute (GRI) study regarding EFV performance

repeatability. In 1985, GRI tested seven EFV models and found that

closure flows of a single copy were repeatable within a range of 6.4

percent to 20.8 percent, whereas closure flows between two arbitrary

copies of the EFVs were repeatable within the range of 15.4 percent and

87.9 percent. None of these models would have met the RSPA proposed

requirements. AGA provided an EFV manufacturer's graphs showing that

none of the currently available EFVs tested by that manufacturer closed

within 10 percent of the rated closure.

Comments on Joint Commenters' recommendation--A member of the Joint

Commenters said its analysis of service ruptures found that EFVs could

close as much as 50 percent over specified closure flow and still

reliably close in the type of accident EFVs are meant to address. Three

other commenters agreed with the Joint Commenters' recommendation.

The TPSSC voted 7 to 4 that the rule specify that an EFV must close

no lower than its rated flow and not more than 50 percent above rated

closure flow.

Response--Although no EFV is currently available at an acceptable

cost that will conform to a 10 percent tolerance, RSPA believes that

distribution operators must have a specified closure range for an EFV

that is reliable. The requirement that an EFV activate at, or 50

percent above, a specified flow level provides an acceptable closure

range in accordance with currently available EFVs. Accordingly, RSPA

will require an EFV be sized to close at or 50 percent above the rated

closure flow rate specified by the manufacturer.

Proposed Section 192.381(c)--(flow rate verification)--RSPA

proposed that the operator verify the manufacturer's rated flow for the

EFV by testing at a pressure of 10 psig for the gas to be transported

in the service line. The Joint Commenters recommended that the

manufacturer certify the EFV meets the manufacturer's written

performance specifications, rather than place this responsibility on

the operator.

Comments to NPRM--Thirty six commenters responded to RSPA's

proposed requirement. Virtually all commenters objected to any operator

responsibility for testing and suggested the requirement be deleted.

Most commenters contended that operators cannot guarantee the

performance of an EFV, but should be able to rely on the manufacturer

to certify that EFVs meet the applicable standards--the approach

allowed for other valves used in gas distribution systems. An EFV

manufacturer also agreed that it should be the manufacturer's

responsibility to test and certify EFVs. Most commenters stated that

the proposed requirement would significantly increase an operator's

costs.

Comments on Joint Commenters' recommendation--An industry

association agreed with the recommendation to allow an operator to rely

on the manufacturer's certification that EFVs meet performance

standards rather than have the operator test each EFV. The association

pointed out that RSPA allows such a procedure under Sec. 192.145.

Response--RSPA agrees with the commenters that the flow rate

verification test should be an EFV manufacturer's responsibility, not

the operator's. Thus, the final rule requires that an EFV be

manufactured and tested by the manufacturer according to an industry

specification, or

[[Page 31456]]

manufacturer's written specification to ensure that each valve will

perform specified minimum functions. This requirement should lead to a

random EFV testing program by the manufacturer, similar to testing for

other system valves. Currently, certain valves (cast iron and plastic)

are installed that meet the specified manufacturing tests in

Sec. 192.145. All other valves must be manufactured according to

specifications in American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 6D, which

also requires random testing by the manufacturer.

Proposed Section 192.381(d)--(replacement)--RSPA proposed that if

an EFV does not close automatically during installation testing or when

the service line is severed, it must be replaced with an EFV that

closes as required. The Joint Commenters' approach would remove any

requirement to assure that an EFV closes after installation.

Comments--None of those commenting on RSPA's proposal was entirely

satisfied with it. Seven commenters suggested changes that included

permitting the operator the option to repair or replace an EFV that

doesn't close. These commenters further proposed exempting a location

from the installation requirement after two EFVs do not perform

properly at that location.

One operator questioned what constitutes satisfactory closure by

explaining that minor accumulations of dust and dirt can interfere with

an absolute 100 percent shutoff. This commenter said that RSPA should

conduct additional studies to ascertain what long-term performance

characteristics can be expected and include acceptable criteria in the

rulemaking.

Eight commenters said the requirement was not needed or questioned

the apparent intent to require the operator to keep replacing an EFV

until one performs as required. Several said that the requirement

assumed that an EFV's failure to close is always the valve's fault.

Commenters explained that many factors influence the operation or

performance of an EFV, including changes in operating pressures and the

type of gaseous mixtures flowing through the service line. They

suggested the practical approach would be to allow the utility to

repair and replace an EFV at its own discretion as it does with other

valves in its system.

Response--RSPA's proposed requirement that an operator replace an

installed EFV if it fails during installation testing or during a

service line break, is no longer applicable since on-site testing and

mandatory EFV installation are not being required in this final rule.

Instead, an EFV must be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer

according to an industry specification or manufacturer's written

specification to ensure that the valve will function properly.

Furthermore, replacement or removal of a defective EFV will be left to

agreement between the customer and operator.

Section 192.381(e)--(manufacturing specifications)--RSPA proposed

that each EFV must be manufactured in accordance with written

specifications that assure the EFV meets the manufacturer's published

pressure and flow rate criteria. The Joint Commenters recommended that,

instead, an EFV be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer

according to a written specification to ensure that the EFV will

function properly up to the maximum rated operating pressure and at all

temperatures reasonably expected. The Joint Commenters further

recommended that an EFV not close when pressures are below the

manufacturer's minimum pressure.

Comments--Fourteen of the fifteen commenters responding to RSPA's

proposed requirement were dissatisfied with the wording and recommended

changes. These commenters stated that this provision appeared to shift

responsibility for quality assurance from the manufacturer to the gas

distribution operator who cannot assure that the manufacturer will

produce valves meeting the manufacturer's published pressure and flow

rate criteria. Commenters further stated that because of liability

concerns there should be an industry EFV standard by which the valves

should be manufactured. APGA also argued that manufacturers, not gas

distribution operators, should be responsible for assuring that EFVs

meet the necessary performance criteria.

Response--RSPA agrees that the proposed requirement was unclear as

to who would be responsible for assuring that an EFV meets the

specified performance requirements. Accordingly, the final rule

clarifies that an EFV will have to be manufactured and tested by the

manufacturer according to an industry specification or manufacturer's

written specification to ensure that each valve meets the specified

minimum performance standards.

Proposed Section Sec. 192.381(f)--(service line capacity)--RSPA

proposed that service line capacity must exceed the EFV manufacturer's

flow rating by 50 percent. The Joint Commenters' approach did not

include a similar requirement.

Comments on NPRM--Thirty three commenters responded to this

proposed requirement. Five commenters said that maintaining a flow rate

at least 50 percent over the rating of the EFV would severely restrict

an operator and increase costs. These commenters explained that such a

high flow rate would, in many cases, require the installation of

service lines larger in diameter than required for a customer's load

and also preclude the insertion of plastic tubing. These persons

recommended reducing the flow rate margin to 25 percent.

Most commenters opposed establishing arbitrary excess flow

capacity. These commenters stated that the sizing of service lines is

the operator's responsibility and that many factors must be considered,

such as costs, current and future loads, the possibility of future

insertions, and future maintenance requirements.

Response--RSPA agrees that a requirement to design a service line

with excess capacity is not necessary for an EFV to function properly

and would add unnecessary expense. Thus, the final rule does not

require that service line capacity exceed the EFV manufacturer's flow

rating by 50 percent. This approach is consistent with Part 192, which

does not require installation of service lines larger than required to

meet the customer's load.

Proposed Section 192.381(g)--(Marking)--RSPA proposed that each

service line with an EFV be physically marked or labeled in the field,

so that the label would be readily visible to gas company employees.

Comments on NPRM--Twelve commenters said that requiring service

lines with EFVs to be identified is unnecessary and is of little

benefit. One commenter, currently using EFVs and marking those service

lines, said it does not believe that marking should be required.

Several commenters stated that marking service lines is futile due to

customers painting the meter set, weather deterioration, and vandalism.

A few commenters suggested that the operator have the option to mark or

record the location of these valves. However, eight commenters

supported the requirement, saying it is a good safety practice for gas

company operator personnel, when arriving at a residence, to know if an

EFV is installed in that service line.

Comments on Joint Commenters' Recommendation--The Joint Commenters'

recommendation did not include a requirement to mark services in the

field. An industry association supported the Joint Commenters' approach

and further recommended that

[[Page 31457]]

the operator be allowed the option to mark services in the field or

record EFV installation on its maps and records.

Response--RSPA believes it is helpful for operating personnel to

know if an EFV is installed in a service line. In a service outage or

emergency, service personnel arriving at a residence might respond

differently depending on whether or not an EFV is installed. For

example, if service personnel find that a service line has been severed

and the line is marked or otherwise identified as having an EFV,

service personnel should recognize that the small amount of gas

escaping from the severed line is from an EFV with a bypass feature and

not from a pinched service line that could suddenly release a hazardous

flow of gas. With this knowledge, service personnel can initiate

correct repair procedures.

Accordingly, the rule will require that an operator must mark or

otherwise identify the presence of an EFV in the service line.

Proposed Section 192.381(h)--(Contaminants)--RSPA proposed that EFV

installation not be required on a service line where the operator can

demonstrate that contamination in the gas stream will cause an EFV to

malfunction. The Joint Commenters' approach eased the operator's burden

of proof by allowing the operator to document, rather than demonstrate,

an unsatisfactory level of contamination.

The Joint Commenters also recommended that EFV installation not be

required where the EFV would interfere with operation and maintenance

activities, such as blowing liquids from the line.

Comments on NPRM--Twenty-four commenters supported the proposal to

except EFV installation where prior experience indicates contaminants

will cause a malfunction. Several commenters stated, however, that it

is unclear how an operator could make such a demonstration. NTSB said

RSPA should state the requirements necessary to claim the exemption.

Several commenters said they hoped that an operator would not have to

install an EFV and wait for it to fail before being able to demonstrate

that contaminants should preclude installation. Two commenters argued

that if an operator has experience with clogging of valves, regulators,

or meters from liquids or solids in certain areas of its system, such

experience should be sufficient to demonstrate that an EFV should not

be installed on that part of the system.

An EFV manufacturer agreed that an EFV should not be installed

where contaminants would interfere with the proper operation of an EFV,

but based on its experience felt it unlikely that many systems have

sufficient contaminants to cause an EFV to malfunction. GASAC commented

that requests for an exemption should be subject to public disclosure

and a formal review process to prevent unwarranted exemptions.

Comments on Joint Commenters' recommendation--AGA argued that the

operator should determine whether to use EFVs in contaminated areas.

AGA said a company might cite previous experience with service lines

plugging with liquids or solids, plugging of other valves or service

regulators, or knowledge of liquids or solid debris in certain parts of

the system to justify not installing EFVs.

Another commenter said that iron oxide rouge from steel pipe mixed

with tiny amounts of compressor fluids forms a sticky residue and

prevented early model EFVs from successfully resetting following

closure. The commenter said it is likely that no EFV on the market

today is robust enough to withstand such contaminants and operate

properly for the minimum expected life of 50 years estimated in the

NPRM.

Response--RSPA agrees that an EFV is not recommended on a service

line where the operator has prior experience with contaminants in the

gas stream that could interfere with the EFV, cause loss of service to

a residence, or cause an operator to incur undue expense in removing an

inoperative EFV. An operator should, based on its previous history of

service line or equipment problems from contaminants, decide whether it

is appropriate to install an EFV. An operator should also consider if

an EFV installed on a service line could interfere with the operator's

operation and maintenance procedures.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive

Order 12866. Therefore, it was reviewed by the Office of Management and

Budget. In addition, the final rule is significant under DOT's

regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979)

because it concerns a matter of substantial interest to the public and

Congress.

Cost/Benefit Analysis (EFV--Performance Standards)

Since the final rule does not require mandatory installation of

EFVs, the performance requirements of this rule will not impact gas

distribution systems not currently installing EFVs unless they begin

installing EFVs. This rule will impact manufacturers of EFVs. As

previously mentioned, OPS will be initiating a separate rulemaking to

propose that customers be notified that EFVs are available for

installation and will be installed at customer expense. This means that

all gas distribution systems may soon be installing EFVs, and, thus,

may be impacted by the new EFV performance standards.

The new EFV performance standards will help ensure that gas

distribution companies that currently install EFVs, as well as those

that begin to install EFVs on their own or because of a new

notification rule, properly install these EFVs. Furthermore, these

standards, by helping to ensure that newly installed EFVs are

manufactured to function properly (e.g., close when they are supposed

to and not close when they are not supposed to), will reduce the cost

of improper closure to both gas distribution system operators and the

general public. The standards will also help keep substandard valves

from entering the marketplace, thereby providing some assurance of

reliability to both operators and customers. As a further result of

these standards, reliable EFVs installed on compatible service lines

will help mitigate the consequences of incidents on service lines.

The cost/benefit study accompanying this rule estimates and

compares the benefits and costs of the EFV performance standards to

determine whether the standards, taken as a whole, would be cost

beneficial. This study estimates the expected benefits and costs of

installing one EFV and uses these estimates to calculate a benefit/cost

ratio. This approach yields the same benefit/cost ratio as an approach

considers the number of EFVs installed in each year, but is less

complicated and cumbersome, since it does not require the estimation of

(1) the number of services expected to be renewed each year, (2) the

number of new services expected to be installed each year, and (3) the

number of existing services that will be discontinued each year.

The primary sources of EFV data used in the analysis were (1) the

written submissions to the Docket for this rulemaking made by gas

distribution companies, EFV manufacturers, and other interested parties

and (2) direct contacts with gas distribution companies, EFV

manufacturers, and other interested parties.

The pipeline incident data used in this analysis was taken

primarily from the incident and annual report submissions made to OPS

by gas distribution companies. These

[[Page 31458]]

submissions are required under the Federal pipeline safety regulations.

All dollar figures in the study are given in nominal dollars,

unless otherwise indicated. Where deflation of nominal dollar figures

has been performed, the Producer Price Index, All Commodities, with

1993 as the base, has been used.

As summarized below, benefits, costs, and net benefits were

developed for (1) the standards for EFV installation, (2) marking

requirements, and (3) the performance requirements. The complete

Benefit/Cost Analysis for EFV Performance Standards, dated August 1995,

is available in the Docket.

Standards for EFV Installation

The final rule requires that an EFV installed on a single-family

residential gas service that always operates at 10 psig or greater (1)

must be rated by the manufacturer for use at the pressure and flow rate

anticipated on the service line and (2) must meet the applicable

requirements of Subparts B and D of Part 192. The final rule also

recommends that an installed EFV be placed as near as practical to the

main. Although this rule specifies standards for EFV installation, the

installation of EFVs is not mandatory. However, if an EFV is installed,

the regulatory standards will help ensure the EFV performs as expected

and protects the maximum length of the most vulnerable portion of a

service line.

The standards for EFV installation appear to be consistent with

current industry practice. Consequently, the benefits, costs, and net

benefits of the requirements are all expected to be $0 per EFV per

year.

Marking Requirements

The new marking requirement will enable gas distribution system

operating and service personnel to know if a service line has an EFV

installed when responding to a service outage or other service line

call. This will make it possible for the personnel to safely initiate

correct repair procedures. The new marking requirement is expected to

reduce deaths and injuries to gas distribution system personnel, and to

reduce damage to the system and nearby property.

The requirement to mark or otherwise identify services with EFVs is

consistent with current industry practice. As a consequence, the

benefits, costs, and net benefits are all expected to be $0 per EFV per

year.

Performance Requirements

The final rule sets performance requirements for all newly

installed EFVs on single-family residential services operating at 10

psig or greater. These performance requirements are to be ensured

through design, manufacturing, and testing by EFV manufacturers in

accordance with an industry specification or with the manufacturer's

written specifications.

The performance requirements will help ensure the reliability of

EFVs. Greater reliability will result in (1) the replacement of fewer

EFVs by gas distribution systems and (2) an increase in the number of

EFV actuations when there are catastrophic service line breaks. The

primary benefit of the new performance requirements will be an

increased average reliability of the EFVs on the market. This assumes

that all EFVs currently on the market are not fully consistent with the

new requirements, which appears to be the case. A secondary benefit

will be the assurance that the quality of EFVs will not degrade (with

respect to the performance characteristics covered by the new

performance requirements) in the future.

The new performance requirements for EFVs cover (1) rated maximum

operating pressure, (2) the impact of external temperature, (3) sizing,

(4) reduction in gas flow upon closure, and (5) inappropriate closure.

The requirements for rated maximum operating pressure, the impact of

external temperature, and sizing appear to be consistent with current

industry practice. The benefits of the new performance requirements are

expected to be between $15,675 and $1,254 per year. The costs are

expected to be $0 per year. Consequently, the net benefits are expected

to be between $15,675 and $1,254 per year.

The net benefits calculated for the performance requirements do not

include (1) the costs related to the redesign of EFVs, (2) the full

monetary value of the benefits accruing to gas distribution companies

that currently install EFVs, and (3) the monetary value of the benefits

that will accrue to gas distribution companies that install EFVs in the

future.

Present Value of the Net Benefits

The net benefits for the new performance requirements are the sum

of the net benefits of (1) EFV installation standards, (2) the marking

requirements, and (3) the EFV performance requirements. Since the net

benefits for the EFV installation standards and for the marking

requirements are expected to be greater than $0 per year, while the net

benefits for the new performance requirements are expected to be

between $15,674 and $1,254 per year, the total net benefits for the EFV

requirements specified in the final rule will be, at most, greater than

$15,674, and, at least, greater than $1,254 per year. Discounted over

50 years (the life of an EFV assumed by OPS) using a 7 percent discount

rate, the present value of the total net benefits is expected to be, at

most, greater than $223,768, and, at least, greater than $17,901. Since

costs are $0, their present value is also $0 and the cost-to-benefit

ratio is 0 at both the upper and lower bounds of the benefits.

Conclusion

The positive present value of the expected net benefits, as well as

the cost-to-benefit ratio of 0 at both the upper and lower bounds on

the benefits, indicate that the performance standards presented in the

final rule will be cost beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Based on costing assumptions discussed in the Cost/Benefit

Analysis, this rule will not have an undue impact on small operators.

Therefore, I certify under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

E.O. 12612

This rulemaking action will not have substantial direct 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 final

rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

National Environmental Policy Act

RSPA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined

that this action would not significantly affect the quality of the

human environment. An Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No

Significant Impact are in the docket.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, Part 192 is amended as follows:

PART 192--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 192 continues to read as

follows:

[[Page 31459]]

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,

60113 and 60118; 49 CFR 1.53.

* * * * *

2. Part 192 is amended by adding Sec. 192.381 to subpart H to read

as follows:

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

(a) Excess flow valves to be used on single residence service lines

that operate continuously throughout the year at a pressure not less

than 10 psig must be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer

according to an industry specification, or the manufacturer's written

specification, to ensure that each valve will:

(1) Function properly up to the maximum operating pressure at which

the valve is rated;

(2) Function properly at all temperatures reasonably expected in

the operating environment of the service line;

(3) At 10 psig:

(i) Be sized to close at, or not more than 50 percent above the

rated closure flow rate specified by the manufacturer; and

(ii) Upon closure, reduce gas flow--

(A) For an excess flow valve designed to allow pressure to equalize

across the valve, to no more than 5 percent of the manufacturer's

specified closure flow rate, up to a maximum of 20 cubic feet per hour;

or

(B) For an excess flow valve designed to prevent equalization of

pressure across the valve, to no more than 0.4 cubic feet per hour; and

(4) Not close when the pressure is less than the manufacturer's

minimum specified operating pressure and the flow rate is below the

manufacturer's minimum specified closure flow rate.

(b) An excess flow valve must meet the applicable requirements of

Subparts B and D of this part.

(c) An operator must mark or otherwise identify the presence of an

excess flow valve in the service line.

(d) An operator should locate an excess flow valve beyond the hard

surface and as near as practical to the fitting connecting the service

line to its source of gas supply.

(e) An operator should not install an excess flow valve on a

service line where the operator has prior experience with contaminants

in the gas stream, where these contaminants could be expected to cause

the excess flow valve to malfunction or where the excess flow valve

would interfere with necessary operation and maintenance activities on

the service, such as blowing liquids from the line.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 1996.

D.K. Sharma,

Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-15564 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P