Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31449

approved part 70 program for

incorporation of minor NSR permits.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–15617 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 93–314; RM–8396]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Cadiz

and Oak Grove, KY

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: The Chief, Policy and Rules

Division, denied the petition for

reconsideration filed by Southern

Broadcasting Corporation of the Chief,

Allocations Branch’s Report and Order,

60 FR 52105, October 5, 1995,

substituting Channel 293C3 for Channel

292A at Cadiz, reallotting Channel

293C3 from Cadiz to Oak Grove,

Kentucky, and modifying Station

WKDZ-FM’s license accordingly. The

Commission denied the petition because

it failed to present new facts or

arguments that were not considered in

the Report and Order that would

warrant a contrary decision. With this

action, this proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bruce Romano, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM

Docket No. 93–314, adopted May 24,

1996 and released June 7, 1996. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractors, International

Transcription Service, Inc. (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Douglas W. Webbink,

Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–15671 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

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
31450 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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, § 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 singleresidence 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 §§ 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
31452 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 statedeveloped 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 singleresidence 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 §§ 192.363 and 192.365 gas

pipeline valve requirements)—RSPA

proposed in the NPRM that EFVs must

comply with the requirements of

§§ 192.363 and 192.365. These existing

sections establish requirements for all

valves in gas service lines.

Comments—Several commenters

stated that §§ 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 § 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 §§ 192.363 and

192.365 apply only to manual shut-off

type valves, not EFVs. Accordingly, the

proposed requirement that EFVs comply

with §§ 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 singleresidence 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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 singleresidence 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 bypasstype 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
31454 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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 inservice 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

§ 192.381(b)(5) in the performance

standards. However, the final rule

(§ 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

§ 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
31456 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 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 § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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
31458 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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

§ 192.381 to subpart H to read as

follows:

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

RIN 1018–AD43

Addition of Ohio River Islands National

Wildlife Refuge to the List of Open

Areas for Sport Fishing in West

Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) adds Ohio River

Islands National Wildlife Refuge to the

list of areas open for sport fishing in

West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and

Kentucky, along with pertinent refugespecific regulations for such activities.

The Service has determined that such

use will be compatible with the

purposes for which the refuge was

established. The Service has further

determined that this action is in

accordance with the provisions of all

applicable laws, is consistent with

principles of sound fish and wildlife

management, helps implement

Executive Order 12962, (Recreational

Fisheries), and is otherwise in the

public interest by providing additional

recreational opportunities at a national

wildlife refuge.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

July 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Assistant Director—Refuges

and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1849 C Street, NW., MS 670

ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen R. Vehrs, Division of Refuges,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (703)

358–2397.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: National

wildlife refuges generally are closed to

hunting and sport fishing until opened

by rulemaking. The Secretary of the

Interior (Secretary) may open refuge

areas to hunting and/or fishing upon a

determination that such uses are

compatible with the purpose(s) for

which the refuge was established. The

action also must be in accordance with

provisions of all laws applicable to the

areas, must be consistent with the

principles of sound fish and wildlife

management, and must otherwise be in

the public interest. This rulemaking

opens Ohio River Islands National

Wildlife Refuge to sport fishing.

In the November 29, 1995, issue of the

Federal Register (60 FR 61239–61240)

the Service published a proposed

rulemaking and invited public

comment. A description of the refuge

and the proposed fishing program was

provided. No comments were received

during the 60-day public comment

period.

Statutory Authority

The National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act (NWRSAA) of 1966,

as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd), and the

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16

U.S.C. 460k) govern the administration

and public use of national wildlife

refuges. Specifically, Section 4(d)(1)(A)

of the NWRSAA authorizes the

Secretary of the Interior to permit the

use of any area within the Refuge

System for any purpose, including but

not limited to, hunting, fishing and

public recreation, accommodations and

access, when he determines that such

uses are compatible with the major

purpose(s) for which the area was

established.

The Refuge Recreation Act (RRA)

authorizes the Secretary to administer

areas within the Refuge System for

public recreation as an appropriate

incidental or secondary use only to the

extent that it is practicable and not

inconsistent with the primary

purpose(s) for which the areas were

established. The NWRSAA and the RRA

also authorize the Secretary to issue

regulations to carry out the purposes of

the Acts and regulate uses.

In many cases, refuge-specific

regulations are developed to ensure the

compatibility of the programs with the

purposes for which the refuge was

established. Initial compliance with the

NWRSAA and the RRA has been

ensured for hunting and sport fishing on

newly acquired refuges through an

interim determination of compatibility

made at the time of acquisition. This has

ensured that the determinations

required by these acts have been made

prior to the addition of refuges to the

lists of areas open to hunting and

fishing in 50 CFR part 32. Continued

compliance is ensured by the

development of long-term hunting and

sport fishing plans and by annual

review of hunting and sport fishing

programs and regulations.

The Service has determined that this

action is in accordance with the

provisions of all applicable laws, is