Document ID: PHMSA-2011-0009-0003
Agency: phmsa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Pipeline Safety: Expanding Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences
Posted Date: 2011-11-25T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72666-72671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30330]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0009]
RIN 2137-AE71

Pipeline Safety: Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas 
Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family 
Residences

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has made a 
safety recommendation to PHMSA that excess flow valves be installed in 
all new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer's 
classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with 
readily available valves. In response to that recommendation, PHMSA is 
seeking public comment on several issues relating to the expanded use 
of excess flow valves (EFVs) in gas distribution systems. PHMSA is also 
interested in seeking comment from gas distribution system operators on 
their experiences using EFVs, particularly from a cost-benefit 
perspective.

DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on this ANPRM 
must do so by February 18, 2012. PHMSA will consider late filed 
comments so far as practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number 
PHMSA-2011-0009 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251.

[[Page 72667]]

     Mail: Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT), Docket Management System, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Instructions: If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. 
To receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a 
self-addressed stamped postcard.

    Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. 
There is a privacy statement published on http://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in 
response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting 
the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an 
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act 
Statement was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 
FR 19477).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni, by telephone at (202) 
366-4571, by fax at (202) 366-4566, or by mail at DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-1, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Congress authorized Federal regulation of gas pipeline facilities 
and PHMSA has statutory authority to prescribe safety standards and 
practices for gas pipeline facilities. That authorization is codified 
in the Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR) (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.), a 
series of statutes that are administered by the DOT, PHMSA.
    On October 24, 1992, Congress enacted the Pipeline Safety Act (PSA) 
of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-508). Section 104 of the PSA (codified as amended 
at 49 U.S.C. 60110) stated, in relevant part:
    (1) Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of 
this subsection, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall issue 
regulations prescribing the circumstances, if any, under which 
operators of natural gas distribution systems must install excess flow 
valves in such systems. In prescribing such circumstances, the 
Secretary shall consider--
    (A) The system design pressure and the system operating pressure;
    (B) The types of customers to which the distribution system 
supplies natural gas, including hospitals, schools, and commercial 
enterprises;
    (C) The technical feasibility and cost of the installation of such 
valves;
    (D) The public safety benefits of the installation of such valves;
    (E) The location of customer meters; and
    (F) Such other factors as the Secretary determines to be relevant.
    Section 104 further stated, in relevant part:
    (2) Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of 
this subsection, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall issue 
regulations requiring operators of natural gas distribution systems to 
notify, in writing, their customers with lines in which excess flow 
valves are not required by law, but can be installed in accordance with 
the performance standards developed under paragraph (4)--
    (A) Of the availability of excess flow valves for installation in 
such systems,
    (B) Of any safety benefits to be derived from the installation, and
    (C) Of any costs associated with the installation.
    Such regulations shall provide that, except in circumstances under 
which the installation is required under paragraph (1), excess flow 
valves shall be installed at the request of a customer if the customer 
will pay all costs associated with the installation.
    Finally, section 104 stated, in relevant part:
    (3) Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of 
this paragraph, the Secretary [of Transportation] shall develop 
standards for the performance of excess flow valves used to protect 
lines in natural gas distribution systems. Such standards shall be 
incorporated into any regulations issued by the Secretary under this 
subsection. All installations of excess flow valves shall be made in 
accordance with such standards.
    On June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31449), PHMSA's predecessor agency, the 
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), issued a final 
rule on the installation of EFVs in single-family-residence service 
lines. RSPA determined that the mandatory installation of EFVs was not 
justified under any circumstances, primarily because the costs of such 
a requirement far exceeded the benefits. RSPA also adopted a standard 
for the performance and installation of EFVs in single-family-residence 
service lines (codified at 49 CFR 192.381). In a later final rule, 
dated February 3, 1998 (63 FR 5464), RSPA adopted a requirement that 
written notice about the availability of EFVs be provided to customers 
with single-family-residence service lines that operate at or above 10 
pounds per square inch gauge (psig), and that those customers be 
further advised that the operator would install an EFV at the 
customer's expense.
    Part 192 of the PSR in combination with measures mandated in the 
Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) and continual 
monitoring of leaks has increased pipeline safety significantly in 
recent years. PHMSA continues to review the way pipelines are regulated 
and adopt strategies to improve pipeline safety. Programs such as 
damage prevention, public awareness, and operator qualifications have 
enhanced pipeline safety. Unfortunately, on rare occasions, the layers 
of protection fail and the results can have serious consequences.
    On July 7, 1998, a natural gas explosion occurred at a single 
family residence in South Riding, Virginia, killing one person and 
injuring three others. NTSB investigated the incident and determined 
that the cause of the explosion was a service line failure. NTSB 
further concluded that an EFV would have cut off the flow of gas in the 
service line and prevented the explosion. Citing that conclusion, on 
June 22, 2001, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendation P-01-2 (SR P-01-
2). SR P-01-2 recommended ``that excess flow valves be installed in all 
new and renewed gas service lines, regardless of a customer's 
classification, when the operating conditions are compatible with 
readily available valves.''
    On December 29, 2006, Congress enacted the Pipeline Inspection, 
Protection, Enforcement, and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-
468). Section 9 of the PIPES Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60109(e)) 
stated that ``[n]ot later than December 31, 2007, the Secretary [of 
Transportation] shall prescribe minimum standards for integrity 
management programs for distribution pipelines.'' Section 9 further 
stated that those:
    [M]inimum standards shall include a requirement for an operator of 
a natural gas distribution system to install an excess flow valve on 
each single family residence service line connected to such system if--
    (i) The service line is installed or entirely replaced after June 
1, 2008;
    (ii) The service line operates continuously throughout the year at 
a pressure not less than 10 pounds per square inch gauge;
    (iii) The service line is not connected to a gas stream with 
respect to which the operator has had prior experience with 
contaminants the presence of

[[Page 72668]]

which could interfere with the operation of an excess flow valve;
    (iv) The installation of an excess flow valve on the service line 
is not likely to cause loss of service to the residence or interfere 
with necessary operation or maintenance activities, such as purging 
liquids from the service line; and
    (v) An excess flow valve meeting performance standards developed 
under section 60110(e) of title 49, United States Code, is commercially 
available to the operator, as determined by the Secretary.
    On December 4, 2009, (74 FR 63934) PHMSA issued a final rule with 
minimum standards for distribution pipeline integrity management. Those 
standards included a mandatory installation requirement for EFVs 
(codified at 49 CFR 192.383):
    (b) Installation required. An EFV installation must comply with the 
performance standards in Sec.  192.381. The operator must install an 
EFV on any new or replaced service line serving a single-family 
residence after February 12, 2010, unless one or more of the following 
conditions is present:
    (1) The service line does not operate at a pressure of 10 psig or 
greater throughout the year;
    (2) The operator has prior experience with contaminants in the gas 
stream that could interfere with the EFV's operation or cause loss of 
service to a residence;
    (3) An EFV could interfere with necessary operation or maintenance 
activities, such as blowing liquids from the line; or
    (4) An EFV meeting performance standards in Sec.  192.381 is not 
commercially available to the operator.
    A requirement that operators report the number of installed EFVs on 
annual basis was also included in that regulation.
    In Section 9 of the PIPES Act, Congress mandated that EFVs be 
installed on service lines serving single family residences. Other 
kinds of service lines, including those that serve branched single 
family residences, apartment buildings, other multi-residential 
dwellings, commercial properties, or industrial facilities, are not 
subject to that statutory mandate, even though such lines are 
susceptible to the same risks as single-family-residence service lines. 
Though Congress has not expressly mandated the use of EFVs to 
applications other than single-family residences, PHMSA has broad 
authority under 49 U.S.C. 60102 to prescribe safety standards requiring 
that EFVs be installed on those lines in appropriate cases. Operators 
of gas distribution systems can also expand the use of EFVs to 
applications other than service lines for single family residences as 
part of their broader obligation to develop and implement an integrity 
management program (49 CFR part 192 subpart B).

II. Interim Evaluation: Response to NTSB Recommendation To Use EFVs in 
Applications Other Than Service Lines Serving One Single Family 
Residence

    In June and August of 2009, PHMSA held public meetings on NTSB's 
recommendation in SR P-01-2 to expand the use of EFVs. The meeting 
participants included the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners, the National Association of Pipeline Safety 
Representatives, the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) 
the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM), natural gas 
distribution operators, trade associations, manufacturers, and the 
Pipeline Safety Trust. As a result of these meetings, PHMSA issued a 
report titled, ``Interim Evaluation: NTSB Recommendation P-01-2 Excess 
Flow Valves in Applications Other Than Service Lines Serving One Single 
Family Residence'' (Interim Evaluation) (available in Docket No.: 
PHMSA-2011-0009 at http://www.regulations.gov.). The Interim Evaluation 
incorporates input from the meeting participants and addresses issues 
related to the installation of EFVs on branched service lines serving 
more than one single family residence, multi-family residential 
dwellings such as apartments, commercial services and industrial 
applications on systems which operate above 10 psig where outside force 
damage could occur to a DOT regulated service. The report provides 
background on NTSB's recommendations and PHMSA's regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives targeted at reducing the occurrence of failures 
on service lines. The Interim Evaluation also describes the 
characteristics of U.S. distribution systems, EFVs' safety function to 
mitigate the consequences of an incident, industry's operating 
experience, the technical challenges, and the commercial availability 
of EFVs for installation in services other than single family 
residences. The report explores alternatives (e.g., curb valves) to the 
installation of an EFV and discusses the information that is needed to 
develop an economic analysis. The report also considers the need for 
adoption and enhancement of EFV technical standards or guidelines.
    Curb valves, essentially a service valve, often are installed close 
to the main for larger services which serve public buildings such as 
schools, churches, commercial buildings, as well as services with 
indoor residential meters. The location and operability of these valves 
in an emergency are relevant in terms of their use as a viable 
alternative to EFVs.

III. Expanded Use of EFVs

    In recent years, PHMSA has expanded regulatory requirements aimed 
at reducing the risk of pipeline incidents. These measures have in 
large part been directed to lowering the likelihood of failures by 
preventing damage to pipelines. EFVs do not prevent accidents but do 
mitigate the consequences of incidents by greatly reducing the amount 
of gas released to the atmosphere when significant damage occurs. EFVs 
help mitigate the potential consequences of a high rate, high volume 
gas release. Where installed, EFVs are complementary to damage 
prevention programs and other pipeline safety efforts that focus on 
preventing accidents caused by outside forces. The following reasons 
have been identified for expanding the use of EFVs to additional 
classes of service:
     Likelihood of EFV mitigating the consequences of an 
incident: Based on incident report information submitted to PHMSA, 
during March 2004-December 2009, approximately 148 out of a total of 
914 incidents (16%) were located on a service or meter/regulator set 
and potentially severe enough to trigger an EFV if one were present. 
These incidents were reported as leaks with a puncture, rupture, or a 
catastrophic failure.
     Likelihood of an incident occurring on a service line 
other than a single family residence: Of the 148 incidents deemed to be 
candidates for prevention by an EFV in the report, 87 (59%) were 
serving customers other than single family residences. Service lines 
serving other than a single-family residence represent approximately 
30% of new and replaced natural gas service lines. Therefore, there is 
a much greater probability that failure of a service line other than a 
single family residence will result in an incident.
     Limitations to the Effectiveness of Damage Prevention 
Efforts to Prevent an Incident: The frequency of service line incidents 
caused by excavation damage has decreased, but there has not been a 
corresponding reduction in consequences, (i.e., in terms of fatalities, 
injuries, fires, explosion or property damage). Furthermore, one-third 
of the incidents in which an EFV might have mitigated the consequences 
and for which the cause was listed as excavation damage occurred after 
a One-

[[Page 72669]]

Call notification. While incidents occur less frequently when a One-
Call notification is placed, the One-Call notification system does not 
eliminate incidents. PHMSA's evaluation found that the pipeline was 
marked in 80% of incidents where the operator received prior 
notification. Such incidents could be the result of unmapped 
facilities, un-locatable facilities, mismarked pipelines, excavators 
that fail to call in, excavators that are exempt from one-call 
requirements and do not call in, inadequate depth-of-cover, etc.
     Difficulty in Preventing Incidents Caused by Natural 
Forces and Other Outside Forces: Of the incidents that were candidates 
for EFV mitigation and where EFVs are not currently required, almost 8% 
were caused by natural forces and 25% were caused by other, non-
excavation outside forces. Operators have less ability to prevent 
incidents from occurring due to these causes than from excavation 
damage.
     Views of the NASFM and the IAFCs: The associations' 
position on the installation of EFVs is that uncontrolled gas leaks 
pose a significant hazard to firefighters, emergency responders, and 
the public. According to these associations, the presence of an EFV can 
be a critical factor in suppressing a gas leak at the scene of an 
incident, where a first responder's ability to control gas flow is 
limited and dependent on the arrival of gas company personnel. While 
not frequently activated, an EFV is a critical tool in the event of a 
large volume release.
     Commercial Availability of EFVs for Other Applications: 
The EFV device is relatively simple and experience demonstrates that 
they operate reliably when sized appropriately for operating 
conditions. The principles of operation remain the same as sizes become 
larger and trip points are increased. EFVs are currently manufactured 
for the vast majority of services.
    PHMSA has identified several situations where the installation of 
an EFV may not be technically practicable. These technical challenges 
are described in detail in Section 9 of the Interim Evaluation, 
``Technical Challenges Associated with Use of EFVs in Non-Single Family 
Residence Service.'' In these situations, the installation of a 
readily-accessible curb valve and box might serve a similar safety 
function to an EFV. Although not instantaneous, a curb valve could 
facilitate the manual shut-off of natural gas service in an emergency 
and provide an alternative solution to an EFV. However, use of curb 
valves requires consideration of additional factors such as:
     EFVs shut-off the flow of gas instantaneously when the gas 
flow exceeds design limits. Curb valves must be manually closed. The 
incident may have already occurred before the curb valve can be closed.
     When the service is very short, the curb valve may be too 
close to a burning building to be safely operated.
     Curb valves can be used to shut-off the flow of gas under 
any flow conditions. EFVs are intended to shut-off the flow of gas when 
there has been a catastrophic failure to the service or its 
appurtenances. In situations when less severe damage occurs, an 
incident may be prevented by closing the curb valve to stop the flow of 
gas.
    PHMSA has identified several issues related to the costs and 
benefits associated with mandatory EFV or curb valve installation that 
should be considered when performing the economic analysis (See Section 
10 of the Interim Evaluation ``Economic Analysis Considerations''). The 
expected benefits are preventing or reducing incident consequences. The 
magnitude of the expected benefits is believed to be dependent on the 
estimated number of incidents impacted and incident consequences 
avoided if an EFV or curb valve had been installed on a service. The 
primary incident consequences that would be reduced are deaths, 
injuries, and property damage. Additional benefits would be an expected 
reduction in the number of fires, explosions, and evacuations occurring 
at incidents, and the quantity of gas lost during incidents. Since the 
subset of incidents whose consequences potentially could have been 
mitigated if an EFV was installed versus those that potentially could 
have been mitigated by a curb valve is different, the magnitude of the 
expected benefits will also be different.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Data found at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/PSI.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Expected costs include the installation and maintenance of the EFV 
or curb valve. Installation costs include material, labor, design, 
supply chain management, and training. For EFVs, maintenance costs 
include the cost of analyzing the cause of failure and the cost of 
replacing an EFV and any other associated costs. Possible EFV failures 
include false closure (closed when not intended), failure to close (did 
not close when service was severely damaged), and failure to reset (EFV 
did not reset after service was put back in operation). Operators may 
also need to replace EFVs when a customer's load increases above the 
capacity of the currently installed EFV. For curb valves, maintenance 
costs include periodically inspecting the curb valve to ensure it is 
operational and inspecting the box to ensure it is free of debris. Curb 
boxes may also require adjusting after surface condition occurrences 
such as road resurfacing or landscaping.
    PHMSA has identified several potential areas in which enhanced or 
expanded technical standards and guidance for the performance, 
operation, installation, identification, and testing of EFVs could be 
valuable regardless of whether PHMSA decides to expand the classes of 
services requiring an EFV (See Section 4, ``Technical Standards and 
Guidelines for EFVs'' of the Interim Evaluation). Currently, Sec.  
192.381 requires operators to use EFVs which are manufactured and 
tested by the manufacturer according to an industry specification or to 
the manufacturer's written specification.
    While not incorporated by reference into the pipeline safety 
regulations, there are three technical standards that address the 
specification, manufacturing, and testing of EFVs. These standards are:
    i. ``Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006--
Design, Performance & Test.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006 
``Design, Performance & Test'' http://www.mss-hq.org/Store/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. ``ASTM International (ASTM) F1802-04--Standard Test Method for 
Performance Testing of Excess Flow Valves.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F1802-04 
``Standard Test Method for Performance Testing of Excess Flow 
Valves'' http://www.astm.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. ``ASTM International (ASTM) F2138-01--Standard Specification 
for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas Service.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F2138 
``Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas 
Service'' http://www.astm.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These standards may not be applicable to all sizes and pressure 
ratings of EFVs that would be needed if they were mandated for use in 
applications other than single family residences and would likely need 
to be expanded to cover other sizes and pressure ratings. A number of 
factors affect the performance and reliability of EFVs such as: 
installation location, configuration, selection, sizing, 
identification, installation method, and operation. ASTM International 
(ASTM) F2138 ``Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for 
Natural Gas Service'' addresses some of these factors at a high level, 
but not in depth.
    These standards may need to be expanded to better address the

[[Page 72670]]

selection, installation, and performance testing of EFVs for a variety 
of design considerations and service line configurations. Operating 
conditions and system configurations under which EFVs are not 
compatible or potentially not advisable may need to be identified and 
integrated into the guidelines. PHMSA's recommended approach is to 
select and size EFVs with a trip point less than, but closest to, the 
gas flow rate of a full service line pipe break.
    If these standards and guidance are enhanced or developed, PHMSA 
may consider if they are adequate to be incorporated by reference into 
the Pipeline Safety Regulations. Incorporating standards by reference 
provides PHMSA a mechanism to ensure that any changes to the standards 
do not lessen public safety. Lastly, the Interim Evaluation identifies 
areas where additional data is needed to further review EFV issues and 
to perform a cost-benefit analysis.
    PHMSA will consider all comments received from the ANPRM plus any 
additional information available, and will finalize the Interim 
Evaluation after publication of this ANPRM. The Interim Evaluation, 
which was peer reviewed by PHMSA, NTSB and representatives of National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National 
Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, IAFC, NASFM, natural 
gas distribution operators, trade associations and the Pipeline Safety 
Trust will document the basis for any PHMSA decision and response to 
NTSB with respect to the EFV issue.

IV. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Although not mandated by Congress, PHMSA, in a direct response to 
the NTSB recommendation P-01-2, seeks public comment regarding the 
technical challenges, and the potential costs and the potential 
benefits of any expanded requirement to use EFVs in applications other 
than service lines serving single family residences. PHMSA additionally 
seeks comment as to whether to establish and/or adopt technical 
standards or guidance for the performance, specification, 
manufacturing, testing, installation, identification, and operation of 
EFVs. Specifically, PHMSA is asking for comment on the following 
issues:
    1. Technical Challenges--Operators have identified technical 
challenges to installing EFVs on services other than single family 
residences. These challenges include (1) the effect of changing gas 
usage patterns; (2) snap loads; (3) business-critical gas supply 
applications; (4) system configuration; (5) pressure ratings; and (6) 
size of commercially available EFVs.
    a. Does Section 9 ``Technical Challenges Associated with Use of 
EFVs in Non-Single Family Residence Service'' fully and accurately 
explain the technical challenges of EFVs in these other applications?
    b. Are there additional technical challenges, obstacles to 
implementation, or reliability issues that should be considered for 
these other applications?
    c. What are the technical challenges to installing and maintaining 
a curb valve when an EFV is not technically feasible?
    d. What are the limitations to using a curb valve to stop the flow 
of gas during emergency situations where EFVs are not technically 
feasible?
    e. What additional cases may exist where the installation of EFVs 
may not be feasible or practical other than those listed in Section 
10.3.1, ``Feasibility/Practicality''?
    2. Economic Analysis Considerations (Potential Costs and 
Benefits)--In addition, PHMSA requests commenters to provide 
information and supporting data related to: the potential costs of 
modifying the existing regulatory requirements pursuant to the 
commenters suggestions; the potential quantifiable safety and societal 
benefits of modifying the existing regulatory requirements; the 
potential impacts on small business of modifying the existing 
regulatory requirements; and the potential environmental impacts of 
modifying the existing requirements.
    The economic analysis of installation of EFVs on services other 
than single family residences involves challenges related to 
quantification and monetization of costs and/or benefits including 
distributional affects. It is important as part of the economic 
analysis to consider both benefits and costs that are distributed among 
sub-populations of particular concern so that decision makers can 
properly consider them along with the effects on economic efficiency. 
Therefore, it will be important to consider input from a variety of 
stakeholders. OMB A-4 (titled ``REGULATORY ANALYSIS'') provides 
additional information about benefit-cost analyses and cost-
effectiveness analyses. Any cost benefit analysis prepared in response 
to this ANPRM will be consistent with the guidance outlined in OMB 
Circular A-4, and any related policies.
    a. Categories of Services To Be Considered--If the requirement for 
EFVs were expanded to other categories of services, would the 
classification described in Section 10.3.2, ``Categories of Services'' 
in the Interim Report be practicable to implement? If not, why not?
    b. Cost Factors--Are there any other issues related to costs 
associated with mandatory EFV or curb valve installation that should be 
considered when performing the benefit-cost analysis, other than those 
listed in Section 10.4, ``Defining Cost Factors'' of the Interim 
Report?
    c. Who should be expected to pay for the installation and 
maintenance of EFV or other alternative and why?
    d. Are there any opportunity costs associated with the installation 
of EFVs? Does there have to be a particular time of day when 
installation occurs? If so, why? How long does installation take?
    e. Benefits Factors:
    i. Are there any other issues related to benefits associated with 
mandatory EFV or curb valve installation that should be considered when 
performing the benefit-cost analysis, other than those listed in 
Section 10.5 ``Defining Benefit Factors'' of the Interim Report?
    ii. Is the method used in Section 2.3.3, ``PHMSA Evaluation of Data 
Related to Incidents on Services,'' of the Interim Report appropriate 
to quantify the expected number of incidents or the consequences 
averted, and to evaluate the risks of such incident occurring? Do the 
parameters used to evaluate incidents for the likelihood of prevention 
by an EFV (i.e. location of the leak (incidents on service lines), 
reported cause of the leak (leaks due to damage), maximum allowable 
operating pressure (MAOP) of the system (>10 PSIG),additional 
information about the leak's characteristics (large leaks and ruptures) 
and classification of customer (customers other than stand-alone 
service line serving a single family residence)) satisfactorily allow a 
conclusion to be made?
    3. Technical Standards and Guidance for EFVs--OMB Circular A-119 
``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary 
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities'' directs 
Federal agencies to utilize voluntary standards both domestic and 
international, whenever feasible and consistent with law and 
regulation. The current DOT regulation applicable to excess flow valve 
standards is 49 CFR 192.381 which requires excess flow valves to be 
manufactured and tested by the manufacturer according to an industry 
specification or to the manufacturer's written specification but does 
not prescribe a specification. Without a standard prescribing EFV 
specification, the possibility exists that EFVs could be installed that 
do not meet currently accepted specifications.

[[Page 72671]]

    4. Additionally, a number of factors affect the performance and 
reliability of EFVs such as installation location, configuration, 
selection, sizing, or installation method. PHMSA has determined that 
current industry standards do not address these factors in detail. 
PHMSA therefore requests comment on industry standards to determine the 
need and availability of consensus standards for EFV utilization.
    a. Should PHMSA incorporate by reference the following technical 
standards? If not, why not?
    b. Are there any alternatives to the standards listed below?
    i. ``Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006--
Design, Performance & Test.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006 
``Design, Performance & Test''  http://www.mss-hq.org/Store/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. ``ASTM International (ASTM) F1802-04--Standard Test Method for 
Performance Testing of Excess Flow Valves.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F1802-04 
``Standard Test Method for Performance Testing of Excess Flow 
Valves'' http://www.astm.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. ``ASTM International (ASTM) F2138-01--Standard Specification 
for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas Service.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) F2138 
``Standard Specification for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas 
Service''http://www.astm.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Are guidelines or technical standards needed for developing and 
if so, why?:
    i. A standard approach to sizing, specifying, performance testing, 
and installing EFVs for a variety of design considerations and service 
line configurations.
    ii. Criteria for identifying operating conditions and system 
configurations under which EFVs are not compatible or potentially not 
advisable.
    In addition, PHMSA requests commenters to provide information and 
supporting data related to:
     The potential costs of modifying the existing regulatory 
requirements pursuant to the commenter's suggestions.
     The potential quantifiable safety and societal benefits of 
modifying the existing regulatory requirements.
     The potential impacts on small businesses of modifying the 
existing regulatory requirements.
     The potential environmental impacts of modifying the 
existing regulatory requirements.

V. Regulatory Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to regulate in 
the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and 
to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.'' We 
therefore request comments, including specific data if possible, 
concerning the costs and benefits of revising the pipeline safety 
regulations to accommodate any of the changes suggested in this ANPRM.

B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and 
timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that may have a substantial, direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. PHMSA is inviting comments on the effect 
a possible rulemaking adopting any of the amendments discussed in this 
document may have on the relationship between National Government and 
the States.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), we must consider whether a proposed rule would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
``Small entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit 
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not 
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations under 50,000. If your business or organization is a small 
entity and if adoption of any of the amendments discussed in this ANPRM 
could have a significant economic impact on your operations, please 
submit a comment to explain how and to what extent your business or 
organization could be affected.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires 
Federal agencies to consider the consequences of Federal actions and to 
prepare a detailed statement analyzing whether the action significantly 
affects the quality of the human environment. Interested parties are 
invited to address the potential environmental impacts of this ANPRM. 
PHMSA is particularly interested in comments about compliance measures 
that would provide greater benefit to the human environment or 
alternative actions the agency could take that would provide beneficial 
environmental impacts.

E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and 
timely input from Indian Tribal government representatives in the 
development of rules that ``significantly or uniquely affect'' Indian 
communities and that impose ``substantial and direct compliance costs'' 
on such communities. PHMSA invites Indian Tribal governments to provide 
comments on any aspect of this ANPRM that may affect Indian 
communities.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under 5 CFR part 1320, PHMSA analyzes the paperwork burdens of any 
information collection required by a rulemaking. PHMSA invites comment 
on the need for collection of information and the associated paperwork 
burdens, if any.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2011.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2011-30330 Filed 11-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P