33476 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

NPRM, but they must have a separate

and distinct heading designating them

as responses to the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall

send a copy of the NPRM, including the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration in

accordance with paragraph 603 (a) of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public

Law No. 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.

601, et seq. (1980).

I. Reason for Action: This proposed

action is necessary to provide more

flexibility for grandfathered shortspaced FM broadcast stations to

effectuate minor modifications of their

facilities. In addition, this proposed

action would allow such minor

modifications to be made more quickly

than under the current procedures.

II. Objectives: The objective of this

proceeding is to provide grandfathered

short-spaced FM station licensees better

defined standards for modifying their

current facilities and to bring improved

service to the public more efficiently

and expeditiously while controlling

interference to other stations.

III. Legal Basis: The action taken in

this NPRM is authorized by sections

4(i), 5(c)(1), 302, and 303 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 155(c)(1),

302, and 303.

IV. Description, Potential Impact and

Number of Small Entities Affected: The

entities affected by this proposal are

pre-1964 grandfathered short-spaced FM

radio station licensees seeking to effect

minor modifications of facilities that

have previously been authorized by the

Commission. The total number of such

licensees is approximately 400. Because

the NPRM proposes provisions which

allow for greater flexibility in operation,

the option of whether or not to take

advantage of the new rules rests with

each licensee. There is no requirement

that any licensee make any change as a

result of these rule amendments. The

number of licensees who might decide

to modify their stations pursuant to

these rule amendments is unknown, but

under the present rules, approximately

15 stations each year file applications

that propose the types of facilities

modifications that are the subject of

these rule amendments.

V. Recording, Record Keeping and

Other Compliance Requirements: None.

VI. Federal Rules which Overlap,

Duplicate or Conflict with these Rules:

None.

VII. Any Significant Alternative

Minimizing Impact on Small Entities

and Consistent with the Stated

Objectives: None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting, Television

broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16395 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket PS–118A; Notice 1]

RIN 2137–AC55

Excess Flow Valve—Customer

Notification

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

require operators of natural gas

distribution systems to notify in writing

their customers of the availability of

excess flow valves (EFVs) meeting DOTprescribed performance standards, the

safety benefits of these valves, and the

costs of installation. If a customer

requests installation, the notice

proposes that an operator will be

required to install the EFV if the

customer pays all costs of installation.

EFVs restrict the flow of gas by closing

automatically when a service line is

severed, thus mitigating the

consequences of service line failures.

This proposed regulation would

enhance public awareness of the safety

benefits that can be derived from

installation of EFVs.

DATES: Comments on this notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) must be

received on or before August 26, 1996.

Late-filed comments will be considered

to the extent practicable. Interested

persons should submit as part of their

written comments all the material that

is considered relevant to any statement

or argument made.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be

submitted in duplicate and mailed or

hand-delivered to the Dockets Unit,

room 8421, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Research and Special

Programs Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Identify the docket and notice numbers

stated in the heading of this notice. All

comments and materials cited in this

document will be available for

inspection and copying in room 8421

between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. each

business day. Non-federal employee

visitors are admitted to the DOT

headquarters building through the

southwest entrance at Seventh and E

Streets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike M. Israni, (202) 366–4571,

regarding the content of this document,

or the Dockets Unit (202) 366–4453 for

copies of this NPRM or other material in

the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In the process of routine excavation

activities, excavators often sever gas

service lines causing loss of life, injury,

or property damage by fire or explosion.

EFVs restrict the flow of gas by closing

automatically when a line is severed,

thus mitigating the consequences of

service line failures. Despite efforts,

such as damage prevention programs, to

reduce the frequency of excavationrelated service line incidents on natural

gas service lines, such incidents persist

and continue to result in death, injury,

fire, or explosion. Because damage

prevention measures are not foolproof,

RSPA has sought to determine an

appropriate means to mitigate the

consequences of these incidents. The

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) and others have recommended

the use of EFVs as a means to mitigate

the consequences of such incidents,

thus saving lives and lessening the

extent of property damage.

By informing customers of the

availability of EFVs for installation at a

cost and the resultant safety benefits,

customers can decide for themselves if

they want the operator to install an EFV

on their service line. Notification giving

information on EFVs may encourage the

increased use of EFVs and, by

encouraging such use, may lead to a

reduction in fatalities, injuries, and

property damage that can result from

excavation-related incidents on gas

service lines.

Statutory Requirement

Federal law requires DOT to prescribe

regulations requiring operators to notify

customers in writing about EFV

availability, the safety benefits derived

from installation, and costs associated

with installation. The regulations are to

provide that, except where installation

is already required, the operator will

install an EFV that meets prescribed

performance criteria at the customer’s

request, if the customer pays all costs

associated with installation. (49 U.S.C.

60110).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 33477

Before DOT prescribes notification

regulations, the statute requires DOT to

issue regulations prescribing the

circumstances under which operators of

natural gas distribution systems must

install EFVs, unless DOT determines

that there are no circumstances under

which EFVs should be installed.

RSPA published an NRPM (Notice 2;

58 FR 21524; April 21, 1993), titled

‘‘Excess Flow Valve Installation on

Service Lines,’’ proposing to require

installation of EFVs on single-residence

gas service lines. During the rulemaking

process RSPA reviewed technical

information, sought advice from state

safety representatives, and analyzed

available operational data. RSPA

determined, primarily for cost reasons,

that there were no circumstances under

which RSPA should require EFV

installation. As required by the statute,

RSPA reported this determination to

Congress on April 4, 1995. A copy of

this report is available in the docket. As

further required by 49 U.S.C. 60110,

RSPA developed performance standards

for EFVs to ensure that an EFV installed

in a single-residence gas service line

operates reliably and safely. These

standards were published as a final rule

61 FR 31449; June 20, 1996.

AGA Petition

On July 14, 1995, the American Gas

Association (AGA) submitted a petition

for a rulemaking on EFV customer

notification requirements. In this

petition, AGA urged RSPA to develop

customer notification regulations that

minimize any regulatory burden on gas

operators. AGA said that the

congressional committee responsible for

the original notification mandate, as

well as proposed changes to that

mandate in current pipeline reauthorization legislation, intended that

an operator be required to notify a

customer about EFVs if the operator was

installing a new service line or replacing

a part of a service line, the line would

accommodate an EFV, and the operating

conditions on the line were the same as

those prescribed in the performance

standards. AGA further said that

Congress intended an operator be

required to install an EFV if the

customer agreed to pay all the costs

associated with the installation,

maintenance, and operation of the EFV.

AGA’s other main concerns about

customer notification are listed as

follows:

(a) Operators are concerned about

potential liability should an EFV fail to

perform to the satisfaction of the

customer and the customer claims that

the gas company overstated the merits

of the product.

(b) Because operators may have

difficulty determining whom to notify if

the occupant is not the owner, the

regulation should clearly identify the

customer who is to receive notification.

(c) The notification requirements

should acknowledge and accommodate

that state or local restrictions may

prevent or restrict the gas utility’s

ability to accept a customer’s payment

for anything except gas service.

(d) Notification should be required

only on services where the conditions

are identical to those in the EFV

performance standards.

(e) Exemption should be allowed from

the notification requirements where

compliance would be infeasible,

impractical or unreasonable.

AGA’s petition is on file in the docket

and was taken into consideration during

development of this notice of proposed

rulemaking.

Pre-NPRM Meetings

On August 2 and September 6, 1995,

RSPA met with representatives of AGA,

the American Public Gas Association

(APGA), NTSB, and the Gas Safety

Action Council (GASAC). These

meetings were early consultations for

RSPA to gather information before

proposing a notification rule.

APGA generally had the same

concerns as AGA. AGA and APGA again

recommended that the costs associated

with installation include EFV

maintenance and replacement costs, as

well as the initial installation cost. As

support, they pointed to the proposed

change in the pipeline re-authorization

legislation allowing for such costs. AGA

and APGA also recommended that

RSPA limit required notification to only

new and replaced service line customers

to minimize the burden on operators.

They explained that because an operator

could have difficulty in determining if

operating conditions on existing service

lines are the same as those found in the

prescribed performance standards an

operator should be allowed to determine

whether to expand notification to all its

existing residential customers. NTSB

and GASAC, on the other hand,

suggested that a notification rulemaking

include all residential natural gas

customers, as well as commercial

enterprises. They pointed out that 49

U.S.C. 60110 did not limit notification

to single-residence customers.

NTSB also recommended that a

notification rule should require

operators to include brochures from two

or three EFV manufacturers, along with

a consumer group’s telephone number,

to help customers make an informed

decision on installation.

Proposed Rule

RSPA proposes to amend part 192 by

adding § 192.383 prescribing

requirements for excess flow valve

customer notification.

Scope

The statute requires notification of

customers with service lines in which

EFVs that meet prescribed performance

criteria can be installed. Because the

final rule setting EFV performance

standards covers only EFVs installed on

single-residence service lines operating

continuously throughout the year at a

pressure not less than 10 psig, RSPA

proposes to limit the scope of customer

notification to those customers. RSPA

developed the performance standards

from the comments and

recommendations received during the

rulemaking process on proposed EFV

installation on single-residence gas

service lines.

Of those single-residence services for

which performance standards were

prescribed, RSPA proposes to require

operators to notify in writing their new

and replaced service line customers.

This proposal is based on RSPA’s belief

that it would not be practical for

operators to send notifications to all

single-residence customers because

determining whether EFVs can be

installed on existing lines presents

difficulties (such as lack of relevant

records and historical data) not

encountered on new and replaced lines.

Furthermore, RSPA’s preliminary

economic evaluation showed that

requiring notification to all singleresidence customers would result in

substantially higher costs with marginal

safety benefits due to the increased time

an operator would have to spend in

responding to inquiries from customers

and determining operating conditions

on existing lines. Because of the

increased installation costs to retrofit an

existing line, it would be unlikely that

many existing customers would choose

to pay the costs of installation.

Nonetheless, RSPA encourages

operators to consider expanding

notification to all single-residence

customers.

RSPA may consider extending the

scope of notification to hospitals,

schools, commercial enterprises, and

apartment buildings after publication of

EFV standards by the American Society

of Testing and Materials (ASTM) F17.40

committee and the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI)/Gas Piping

Technology Committee (GPTC) Z380.

Definition of ‘‘Replaced’’ Service Line

RSPA proposes to define a ‘‘replaced’’

service line as a natural gas service line
33478 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

undergoing a repair in which a section

of pipe is replaced between the gas main

and the meter set assembly.

Definition of ‘‘Service Line Customer’’

RSPA recognizes that determining

whom an operator should notify may be

difficult because the occupant of the

residence where the EFV may be

installed is not always the owner. RSPA

is proposing to define the service line

customer an operator should notify as

the person who pays the gas bill, or

where service has not yet been

established, the owner of the property.

Under this proposed definition, the

person who pays the gas bill may be the

tenant, the owner, or a third party. In

cases where service has not yet been

established, such as a new subdivision

or cluster of homes, the property owner

at the time the service is installed may

be the home builder.

Information in the Notification

RSPA is proposing that the

notification contain the minimum

amount of information required by the

statute. Under the proposal, the operator

can decide how to word that

information as long as sufficient

information is given to provide the

customer a basis to decide whether to

pay for EFV installation and the

information is written in language easily

comprehended by the average customer.

This flexibility should address

operators’ concerns about potential

liability problems.

—Meets DOT Performance Standards

An explanation that an excess flow

valve meeting minimum DOTprescribed performance standards is

available for the operator to install on

the service line if the customer pays the

cost of installation. The explanation

should make clear to the customer that

EFV installation is not mandatory, but

that if the customer requests installation

and pays all costs associated with

installation, the operator will install an

EFV.

—Safety Benefits

An explanation of the potential safety

benefits of installing an EFV, to include

that an EFV is designed to shut off the

flow of natural gas automatically when

the service line is ruptured. The rule

proposes that as long as the operator

describes the benefits to be derived from

installation, the operator may choose

how best to describe those benefits.

—Cost associated with installation

An explanation that if the customer

requests the operator to install an EFV,

the customer bears the costs associated

with installation and what those costs

are. AGA suggested in its petition that

costs ‘‘associated’’ with installation

should include initial installation,

maintenance, and replacement costs of

the EFV. Although such costs are

allowed in proposed re-authorization

legislation, RSPA is following the

language in 49 U.S.C. 60110 that limits

costs to costs associated with

installation. RSPA believes the reason

for the customer notification

requirement was to allow customers to

have a reasonably available extra safety

protection. Therefore, to assure costs are

not prohibitive to customers desiring

EFV installation, RSPA is proposing that

an operator be limited in recoupment of

its costs of installation, specifically, to

direct costs (parts and labor) of

installation. Thus, excavation costs for

new and replaced services are not to be

included in the direct cost of EFV

installation.

Supplementary Material

Additional information, such as EFV

manufacturers’ brochures and a

consumer group’s telephone number,

may help customers in deciding

whether to have an operator install an

EFV. However, RSPA believes requiring

such information to be included would

burden operators with trying to include

every manufacturer’s brochure and

every applicable consumer group’s

telephone number, or would leave

operators open to criticism from those

whose information was not included.

Nonetheless, RSPA encourages

operators to include additional

information, such as one or more EFV

manufacturer’s brochures or a consumer

group’s telephone number, if in the

operator’s judgment the information

would aid the customer’s decision

making.

Time and Frequency of Notification

RSPA proposes that an operator notify

each applicable service line customer

the later of 1 year after date of

publication of a final rule in the Federal

Register or at least 30 days before the

operator installs a new service line or

replaces the service line. One year

should be adequate time for operators to

learn which customers to notify, to draft

notices, and to instruct personnel to

handle inquiries.

Exemptions

In RSPA’s judgment the regulatory

waiver process now in place should

alleviate concern about an operator’s

recourse if a jurisdiction (state or local)

prevents or restricts the gas utility from

accepting a customer’s payment for

anything other than gas service. To

RSPA’s knowledge, when a customer

voluntarily asks for extra safety

protection, a state or local jurisdiction

may not prevent a gas operator from

charging that customer for providing

that extra service. However, if an

operator is so prevented, it may apply

for a waiver from the regulation. In any

case, because we lack information on

how prevalent this situation is, we seek

comment from operators, state pipeline

safety agencies, their representative

associations and others on this issue.

We also seek comment on whether the

waiver process in such a situation

would be too burdensome. Similarly, if

an operator believes that in a particular

situation, compliance would be

infeasible, impractical or unreasonable,

the operator may apply for a regulatory

waiver. Again, we seek comment on this

issue.

RSPA is proposing that the

notification requirements would not

apply in certain limited

circumstances—

(1) To service lines in which the

operator will install an excess flow

valve voluntarily or where installation

is required by the state or local

jurisdiction;

(2) If excess flow valves meeting the

RSPA-prescribed performance standards

are not available to the operator;

(3) Where an operator has prior

experience with contaminants in the gas

stream that could interfere with

operation of the EFV, cause loss of

service to a residence, or where the

installation of an excess flow valve

would interfere with necessary

operation or maintenance activities,

such as blowing liquids from the line.

The burden will be on the operator to

demonstrate that any of these

circumstances prevent it from installing

an EFV.

As previously noted, AGA’s petition

requested that a notification rule allow

an exemption in emergency situations.

RSPA recognizes that in some situations

an operator may not be able to notify a

customer before replacing a service line.

However, RSPA does not want such an

exemption to be used on all repairs. We

seek comment and information on how

to implement and define this requested

exclusion. What type of emergency

repairs do operators see that could

justify such an exemption? How can an

exemption be limited so that it can not

be used for any repair needing

replacement?

Record

To check compliance, RSPA and State

inspectors will need to view a copy of

the notice operators send customers and

proof that notices have been sent to

customers. Therefore, RSPA proposes

that each operator must make the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 33479

following records available for

inspection by the Administrator or a

State agency participating under 49

U.S.C. 60105 or 60106:

(1) A copy of the notice currently in

use; and

(2) Proof that notices have been sent

to customers within the previous three

years.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposed rule is not considered

a significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and, therefore, was not subject to review

by the Office of Management and

Budget. The proposed rule is not

considered significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (44 FR

11034; February 26, 1979).

A regulatory evaluation has been

prepared based on the estimated

expense involved in developing and

sending customer notification to new

and replaced single-residence service

line customers.

RSPA estimates that large and

moderate-sized gas operators will

develop their own customer notice. This

should take approximately 40 hours at

approximately $25 an hour or a onetime cost of $1,000 per company (40

hours × $25 per hour = $1,000). RSPA

estimates in its regulatory evaluation

(based on analysis done for an earlier

rulemaking on customer-owned service

lines) that there are 106 large gas

operators and 145 moderate-sized gas

operators. Therefore, the cost to the

industry to develop this proposed notice

will be a one-time cost of $251,000 (251

× $1,000). The cost of mailing this

notice will be $0.32 plus the estimated

$0.1 copying cost for a one-page notice,

for a total cost of $0.42 per customer. If

there are 900,000 new or renewed

customers annually, the cost of this

notice should be $378,000 (900,000 *.42

mailing) per year. Assuming 10% of all

notified customers were to call

operators for more information, that

would result in 90,000 phone calls.

Each call lasting five minutes would

amount to 7,500 hours (90,000 * 5⁄60 hrs)

spent answering customer inquiries. If

the employee responsible for answering

were paid $15 per hour the additional

cost of these conversations would be

$112,500 (7,500 * $15) per year. The

total cost to the industry will be the one

time cost of developing the proposed

notice, $251,000, and the additional cost

per year of mailing and handling

inquiries, $490,500 ($112,500 +

$378,000).

As discussed in the Regulatory

Evaluation, the American Public Gas

Association (APGA), which represents

municipal gas distribution companies

(the bulk of small operators), has agreed

to assist small and medium-sized

operators in developing a generic EFV

notification. RSPA also believes that

EFV manufacturers, as well as other

large companies and state gas

associations, are likely to assist smaller

gas operators in their development of an

EFV notification. With this help, RSPA

believes that small and medium-sized

operators will choose to use a generic

notification rather than incur the cost of

developing their own notice. However,

there will be the cost of notice

reproduction, mailing, and handling

phone inquiries as described above.

Therefore, RSPA estimates that the cost

of developing this notice as proposed

will be minimal for small and mediumsized operators.

RSPA considered requiring

notification of the availability of EFVs to

all customers, not simply new and

renewed customers. This alternative

was rejected as not being cost-beneficial

for two reasons. First, the cost of this

rule would be an additional $5.36

million (53.6 million customers × $.10

per copy) just for developing the notice.

In addition, assuming 10% of all

notified customers were to telephone

operators for more information, that

would result in 5.36 million additional

phone calls. Each call lasting five

minutes would amount to 446,666 hours

(5.36 million* 5⁄60 hours). If the

employees responsible for answering

these inquiries were paid a salary of $15

per hour, the additional cost of handling

inquiries would be $6.7 million (5.36M

* 5⁄6 * 15) to the industry. Therefore, the

total cost of notifying existing customers

would be additional $12 million

($5.36M + $6.7M). Second, there would

be marginal safety benefit as few

existing service line customers would be

likely to request EFV installation that

could cost more than $500 per service

line, mainly due to the excavation costs

associated with such installation.

Therefore, RSPA concludes that

requiring operators to notify all existing

customers would cost significantly more

and would provide little additional

benefit to the public.

Benefits that are expected to result

from this proposed rule are the

increased use of EFVs, which could

potentially reduce the fatalities, injuries

and property damage that can result

from excavation-related incidents on gas

service lines.

The regulatory evaluation is available

for review in the docket. Based on the

findings of this evaluation this proposed

rule should have minimal economic

impact on industry and the public.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Federal Government is required

to determine the impact of its

regulations on small entities. Based on

the regulatory evaluation, RSPA has

determined that the proposed rule will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Approximately 1,600 natural gas

distribution operators will be affected

by this rule. APGA, the trade association

of the majority of small operators, has

indicated it will assist operators in

preparing a notification. Additionally,

EFV manufacturers have also offered to

assist operators. It is also likely that

regional gas associations and large

operators will assist smaller operators in

developing the appropriate notification.

All these actions will serve to minimize

the costs to small operators because

small operators are apt to use a generic

notice created by one of these groups

rather than incur the expenses of

developing their own notice.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains proposed

information collections that have been

submitted for review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

section 3507(d) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13).

Interested persons are invited to

comment on the proposed collection of

information. Comments should address:

(1) The necessity and utility of the

proposed information collection for the

proper performance of the agency’s

functions; (2) the accuracy of the

agency’s burden estimates, including

the validity of the methodology and

assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (4)

ways to minimize the information

collection burden on the respondents,

including the use of automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques.

Administration: Department of

Transportation, Research and Special

Programs Administration;

Title: Excess Flow Valves: Customer

Notification.

Need for Information: By notifying

customers that they may have an excess

flow valve installed on their line at cost,

some of the consequences of service line

failures (fatalities, injuries and property

damage) could be mitigated.

Summary: Operators must

demonstrate that they have sent the EFV

notification to their customers.

Proposed Use of Information: The

notification will advise customers that
33480 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

they may request an excess flow valve

be installed on their service line at their

own expense. Also, by keeping proof

that notification was sent, RSPA will be

able to ascertain that operators are

complying with this regulation.

Frequency: Occasionally, once for

each new and renewed customer.

Number of Respondents: 1,590.

Estimate of Burden: 17,541 hours.

Respondents: Natural Gas Distribution

Operators.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 11 hours (first year) 4.75

hours each subsequent year.

For further information contact: Mr.

Marvin Fell, Office of Pipeline Safety,

Research and Special Programs

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

Comments on the proposed

information collection requirements

should be submitted within 30 days of

the publication of this notice to: the

Office of Management and Budget,

Office of Information and Regulatory

affairs, New Executive Office Building,

725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC

20503, Attn: Desk Officer RSPA. Persons

submitting comments to OMB are also

requested to submit a copy of their

comments to RSPA as indicated above

under ADDRESSES.

Persons are not required to respond to

a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

Federalism

This proposed rule will not have

substantial effects on states, on the

relationship between the federal

government and the states, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with E.O. 12612 (52 FR

41685, October 30, 1987), RSPA has

determined that this proposed rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

Pipeline Safety, Reporting

requirements.

The Rule

In consideration of the foregoing,

RSPA proposes to amend 49 CFR part

192 as follows:

PART 192—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 192

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104,

60110, and 60118; 49 CFR 1.53.

2. Part 192 would be amended by

adding § 192.383 to read as follows:

§ 192.383 Excess flow valve Customer

Notification.

(a) Prior to installing a new service

line or replacing an existing service line

that operates continuously throughout

the year at a pressure not less than 10

psig and that serves a single residence,

each operator of a natural gas

distribution system shall notify the

service line customer in writing that:

(1) An excess flow valve meeting

performance standards prescribed under

§ 192.381 is available for installation by

the operator if the customer bears the

costs associated with installation;

(2) Potential safety benefits may be

derived from installing an excess flow

valve. Benefits are to include that an

excess flow valve is designed to shut off

the flow of natural gas automatically

when the service line is ruptured.

(3) The costs the customer bears shall

be the direct costs (parts and labor) of

installing or replacing the excess flow

valve and what those costs are.

(4) The notice shall provide

explanation in sufficient detail, and in

language easily comprehended by the

average customer, to provide the basis

upon which the customer can decide

whether to pay for installation.

(5) For the purpose of this section, a

‘‘replaced’’ service line refers to a

natural gas service line in which a

section of pipe is replaced between the

gas main and the meter set assembly. A

‘‘service line customer’’ means the

person who pays the gas bill, or where

service has not yet been established, the

owner of the property.

(b) The operator shall install an excess

flow valve in accordance with

paragraph (a) of this section if the

customer agrees to pay all costs

associated with installation.

(c) Each operator shall notify each

customer not later than [insert date 1

year after date of publication of a final

rule] or at least 30 days before a new or

replaced service line is installed,

whichever is later.

(d) Each operator must make the

following records available for

inspection by the Administrator or a

State agency participating under 49

U.S.C. 60105 or 60106:

(1) A copy of the notice currently in

use; and

(2) Proof that notices have been sent

to customers within the previous 3

years.

(e) The notification requirements of

paragraph (a) of this section do not

apply—

(1) To service lines in which the

operator will install an excess flow

valve voluntarily or where installation

is required by the state or local

jurisdiction;

(2) If excess flow valves meeting the

RSPA prescribed performance standards

are not available to the operator;

(3) Where an operator has prior

experience with contaminants in the gas

stream that could interfere with the

EFV, cause loss of service to a residence

or where the installation of an excess

flow valve would interfere with

necessary operation or maintenance

activities, such as blowing liquids from

the line.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21,

1996.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 96–16384 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P