[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41460-41472]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17195]

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

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Excess Flow Valves (EFVs), which are safety devices installed
on natural gas pipelines to reduce the risk of accidents, are currently
required for new or replaced gas service lines servicing single-family
residences (SFR). PHMSA is proposing to make changes to part 192 to
expand this requirement to include new or replaced branched service
lines servicing SFRs, multi-family residences, and small commercial
entities consuming gas volumes not exceeding 1,000 Standard Cubic Feet
per Hour (SCFH). PHMSA is also proposing to require the use of manual
service line shut-off valve (e.g., curb valves) for new or replaced
service lines with meter capacities exceeding 1,000 SCFH. Finally,
PHMSA is proposing that operators notify customers of their right to
request installation of an EFV on service lines that are not being
newly installed or replaced. PHMSA is proposing to delegate the
question of who bears the cost of installing EFVs to service lines that
are not being newly installed or replaced to the operator, customer,
and the appropriate State regulatory agency.

DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on this Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) must do so by September 14, 2015. 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:
    Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0009 and may be
submitted in the following ways:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Docket
Operations Facility (M-30), West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Operations Facility, West
Building, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC,
20590 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number, PHMSA-2011-0009, at the
beginning of your comments. If you mail your comments, submit two
copies. In order to confirm receipt of your comments, include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard.

    Note:  All comments are posted electronically in their original
form, without changes or edits, including any personal information.

Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone can search the electronic comments associated with any
docket 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by mail at DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., PHP-1, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    An EFV is a mechanical safety device installed inside the natural
gas service line between the street and residential meter. The EFV will
``trip or close'' if there is sufficient damage to the line to minimize
the flow of gas through the line and thus, the amount of gas that
escapes into the atmosphere. During normal use, the valve is kept
pushed open against oncoming gas flow by a spring. EFVs are designed so
that general usage, such as turning on appliances, will not shut the
valve. However, during a significant increase in the flow of gas (e.g.,
due to a damaged line), the spring cannot overcome the force of gas,
and the valve will close and stay closed until the correct pressure is
restored. When the correct pressure is restored, the EFV automatically
resets itself.
    On July 7, 1998, in South Riding, Virginia, a residential gas
explosion resulted in one death and three injuries. It is not known if
the explosion occurred on a branched or non-branched service line
servicing an SFR; however, PHMSA believes that this proposed rule or
its previous rule requiring EFVs on single lines serving SFRs would
have mitigated the consequences of the explosion. An investigation by
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found the explosion
likely would not have occurred if an EFV had been installed for this
single-family home. Similarly, PHMSA strongly believes this incident
would have likely been would have been mitigated at a minimum. As a
result, on June 22, 2001, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendation P-01-2,
recommending that PHMSA require excess flow valves 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 December of 2005, the ``Integrity Management for Gas
Distribution: Report of Phase I Investigations,'' \1\ developed by a
multi-stakeholder group, was published. In the report, the stakeholder
group recommended that ``[A]s part of its distribution integrity
management plan, an operator should consider the mitigative value of
excess flow valves (EFVs). EFVs meeting performance criteria in Sec.
192.381 and installed in accordance with Sec.  192.383 may reduce the
need for other mitigation options.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PHMSA-RSPA-
2004-19854-0070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to study the possible benefits of expanding EFVs
beyond SFR applications, PHMSA began development of the Interim
Evaluation in early 2009. In June and August of 2009, PHMSA held public
meetings on NTSB Recommendation P-01-2.
    The meeting participants included the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National Association of Pipeline
Safety Representatives, the International Association of Fire Chiefs,
the National Association of State Fire Marshals, 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
SFR'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Interim Evaluation Report was issued in 2010 by PHMSA.
The purpose of the interim report was to respond to the NTSB safety
recommendation P-01-02 and evaluate the possibility of expansion of
EFVs to applications other than service lines serving one single
family residence (above 10 psig). The interim report also built a
foundation for an economic analysis, considered the need for
enhanced technical standards or guidelines, and suggested that any
new technical standards include criteria for pressure drops across
the EFV. The interim report can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PHMSA-2011-0009-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 4, 2009, PHMSA amended the pipeline safety regulations
to require the use of EFVs for new or replaced gas lines servicing
SFRs.\3\ While this requirement met the mandate of the Pipeline
Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act (PIPES Act) enacted
in 2006, distribution lines, including those that serve branched SFRs,
apartment buildings, other multi-residential dwellings, commercial
properties, and industrial service lines, are still not required to use
EFVs. These structures are susceptible to the same risks as SFR service
lines. PHMSA, already aware of this risk, was awaiting completion of
the Interim Evaluation, which studied the possible expansion of EFVs
beyond SFRs and the challenges of application. The Interim Evaluation
also addressed other practical alternatives such as the use of manual
isolation devices, such as curb valves. The evaluation identified
challenges related to the feasibility and practicality of the proposed
solutions, as well as significant cost factors and benefit factors. The
evaluation found that there are no other devices or viable options to
shut off gas supply quickly when gas services line ruptures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Programs for Gas
Distribution Pipelines,'' 74 FR 63906 (December 4, 2009) RIN 2137-
AE15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 25, 2011, PHMSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) (76 FR 72666) asking the public to comment on the
findings of the Interim Evaluation and issues relating to the expanded
use of EFVs in gas distribution systems. PHMSA also sought comments
from gas distribution operators on their experiences using EFVs,
including:
     Technical challenges of installing EFVs on services other
than SFRs;
     Categories of service to be considered for expanded EFV
use;
     Cost factors;
     Data analysis in the Interim Evaluation;
     Technical standards for EFV devices; and
     Potential safety and societal benefits, small business and
environmental impacts, and costs of modifying the existing regulatory
requirements.

The ANPRM comments received by PHMSA will assist in the finalization of
the Interim Evaluation and in determining what regulatory changes may
be necessary to fulfill this mandate.

    In 2012, the President signed the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, which requires PHMSA to study
the possibility of expanding the use of EFVs beyond SFRs and issue a
final report on the evaluation of the NTSB's recommendation on excess
flow valves within 2 years after enactment of the Act. PHMSA is also
mandated to, if appropriate, issue regulations requiring the use of
EFVs or equivalent technology, where ``economically, technically and
operationally feasible'', for new or entirely replaced distribution
branch services, multi-family lines, and small commercial service
lines. PHMSA has determined for the purpose of this proposed rule,
based on the study, that the safety benefits of expanding EFVs justify
the cost and is appropriate. The only proposed exceptions are for large
apartment buildings, industrial or commercial users for whom EFVs may
not be practical due to inherent design complexity, continuous supply
demands and/or contamination issues. Additionally, PHMSA is proposing
that services exceeding 1,000 SFCH install curb valves on new or
replaced gas service lines.
    The proposed required use of curb valves for large commercial
(greater than 1,000 SFCH) goes beyond the Section 22 language of the
Pipeline Safety, Job Creation, and Regulatory Certainty Act of 2011,
however it is based on ANPRM comments received from industry, trade
associations and other stakeholders. PHMSA and industry in general
believe that EFVs are not suitable larger commercial facilities over
1,000 SFCH. Curb valves are the best alternative to an EFV and provide
an effective added level of safety for these facilities. These valves
also are a feasible alternative based on the cost/benefit analyses.
    PHMSA's authority for regulating natural gas pipelines was first
established by the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, Public Law
90-481, and has since been enlarged by additional legislation. The
Pipeline Safety Laws specifically delegate authority to DOT to develop,
prescribe, and enforce minimum Federal safety standards for the
transportation of natural gas. PHMSA has used this statutory authority
to promulgate comprehensive minimum safety standards. While the 2011
Act specifically directed PHMSA to require the installation of EFVs on
new and replaced branched lines serving SFRs, multi-family and small
commercial facilities, DOT's underlying prior statutory authority under
49 U.S.C. 60104 provides PHMSA with the authority to require the
installation of curb valves for large commercial facilities.
    In the time since the 1998 incident in South Riding, Virginia, the
NTSB has investigated an additional 8 incidents, which resulted in 10
fatalities that could have possibly been averted if an EFV had been in
place. The most recent incident occurred on November 23, 2012, when a
gas pipeline exploded in Springfield, Massachusetts. The Springfield
explosion injured 21 people and damaged more than 40 buildings. It is
important also to note that this incident occurred on the day after
Thanksgiving and the daycare adjacent to the explosion was closed. If
the daycare would have been open, it is highly likely this incident
would have resulted in even more losses. This incident is currently
under investigation

by the NTSB. All eight of these incidents occurred on lines that would
be affected by this rulemaking.

II. Analysis of ANPRM

    Nineteen organizations and individuals submitted comments in
response to the ANPRM. The individual docket item numbers are listed
for each comment.

Trade Associations

     Northeast Gas Association (NGA) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0012).
     Texas Pipeline Association (TPA) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0016).
     American Gas Association (AGA) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0023).
     American Public Gas Association (APGA) (PHMSA-2011-0009-
0024).

Gas Transmission and Distribution Pipeline Companies

     MidAmerican Energy Company (MAE) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0011).
     Avista Utilities (AU) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0013).
     Southwest Gas Corporation (SWC) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0015).
     National Grid (NG) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0022) (Supported AGA
comments).
     Laclede Gas (LG) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0018) (Supported AGA
comments).
     Kansas Gas Service (KGS) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0017).
     Nicor Gas (PHMSA-2011-0009-0014).

Government/Municipalities

     City of Ellensburg, Washington (PHMSA-2011-0009-0004).
     NTSB (PHMSA-2011-0009-0009).
     Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0020).

Pipeline Industry Suppliers

     R.W. Lyall (PHMSA-2011-0009-0021).
     Gas Breaker, Inc. (GBI) (PHMSA-2011-0009-0019).

Citizens

     Rebecca Lee Roter (PHMSA-2011-0009-0006).
     Courtney D. Brown (PHMSA-2011-0009-0010).
     Anonymous (PHMSA-2011-0009-0008) (The anonymous commenter
expressed concerns regarding pipeline safety versus job creation,
corruption, and politics. These topics are beyond the scope of this
NPRM and are not discussed further.)
    PHMSA reviewed all of the comments received in response to the
ANPRM. The comments received from the trade associations largely
supported expanded EFV use with certain limitations. The operators that
responded with comments raised some concerns with expanded EFV use
generally related to logistics and implementation. Municipality
comments reflected a concern that State laws already in place could
conflict with any new Federal requirements. The NTSB expressed strong
approval of the expanded EFV use. The comments submitted are discussed
below in the same order as presented in the questions from the ANPRM.

A. Technical Challenges of Installing EFVs on Services Other Than SFRs

A.1. Does the Interim Evaluation address all challenges associated with
expanded EFV use (changing gas usage patterns, snap loads, business-
critical gas supply applications, system configuration, pressure
ratings, and size of commercially available EFVs)?
    The ANPRM solicited feedback and comments regarding whether the
Interim Evaluation fairly and accurately explained the challenges of
expanded EFV use. These challenges, identified in the Interim
Evaluation from a variety of stakeholders, may limit or exclude future
EFV expansion beyond SFR applications due to safety reasons. The
challenges included changing gas-usage patterns, snap loads (i.e. loads
that lead to false closures), business-critical gas supply
applications, system configurations, pressure ratings, and the sizes of
commercially available EFVs. Among the challenges discussed by the
commenters, snap loads (loads that lead to false closures), load
variation, and proper EFV sizing seemed to be of the greatest concern.
    Overall, industry, trade association, government, and municipality
commenters agreed that the Interim Evaluation failed to accurately and
fully portray a variety of the technical and operational challenges and
costs and benefits associated with expanded EFV requirements. These
commenters either stated the report was lacking in certain areas or did
not comment. In general, commenters, including AGA and APGA, strongly
cautioned against the broad expansion of EFV requirements beyond those
for SFRs, citing operators' lack of experience and design complexities.
Specifically, APGA, SWC, AGA, LG, NG, AU, TPA, IUB, NGA, and MAE all
found the Interim Evaluation's discussion of the challenges of proper
EFV sizing protocols, system configuration, and changes in gas-usage
patterns to be inadequate and to contain false assumptions. Due to
these concerns, MAE suggested that any EFV requirements should only
affect new installations. Likewise, AGA supported the installation of
EFVs on new and entirely replaced service lines in the following
applications only:
     Service lines to SFRs;
     SFR service lines and branched SFR service lines installed
at the same time;
     A branched SFR service line branching off an existing SFR
service line that does not contain an EFV provided there is sufficient
line capacity;
     A branched SFR service line branching off an existing SFR
service line that contains an EFV sized appropriately for both
customers provided there is sufficient line capacity;
     Multi-family installations, including duplexes, triplexes,
and fourplexes, with individual meter sets, a known customer load
(based on meter capacity) not exceeding 1,000 standard cubic feet per
hour (SCFH), and a load that is not expected to increase over time; and
     Small commercial customers with a known customer load
(based on meter capacity) not exceeding 1,000 SCFH through a single
service line and where the load is not expected to increase over time.
    AU, KGS, APGA, SWC, GBI, AGA, and the City of Ellensburg, WA, were
concerned with the challenges of snap loads and the loss of continuous
supply. Snap loads may occur when the amount of natural gas required to
meet demand suddenly increases, which is generally due to many
appliances being turned on at one time. GBI, AU, and AGA suggested that
requiring EFVs for lines not exceeding 1,000 SCFH based on meter size
is reasonable, but the false closure and load variation challenges make
using EFVs for applications that exceed 1,000 SCFH difficult. AU
specifically stated that the failure (false closure or malfunction) of
EFVs at high loads during winter frost is difficult to mitigate and is
an inconvenience to customers who lose service. AU stated that winter
frost makes pipeline excavation to repair lines difficult due to frozen
soil. SWC commented that business disruptions and loss of service in
vital areas such as high-occupancy dwellings created a safety hazard.
KGS recommended that service lines serving multiple customers should
not use a single EFV due to the increased degree of variation in the
gas flow rates.
    PHMSA received different approaches from commenters regarding the
proper selection of an EFV for a pipeline, or what is referred to in
the Interim Evaluation as ``EFV sizing''. The trip point is the
specific point in which the

EFV ``trips'', or closes, the valve due to gas pressure differential
and is essentially the factor that guides the size selection of an EFV.
In the Interim Evaluation, PHMSA suggested an EFV's trip point should
be less than, but close to, the flow rate of a complete line rupture.
    Commenters indicated that PHMSA's approach for trip point selection
either led to tripping too easily or not at all. R.W. Lyall, an EFV
manufacturer, further submitted that EFVs should be sized so that the
EFV trip point, at the minimum system pressure, is above the maximum
anticipated load and is above meter capacity. GBI suggested an EFV
should be selected that operates at least 1.5 times the meter rating at
the minimum design inlet pressure. Finally, SWC and NGA specifically
commented that, due to the complexity of design found in multi-family
industrial and commercial service lines, a common approach for sizing
is not possible. With regard to the challenges of commercially
available EFVs, PHMSA received two comments. GBI, an EFV manufacturer,
commented that the commercial availability for most applications, even
those considered large, is not a problem. In contrast, MAE stated that
the commercial availability of EFVs for non-residential load profiles
is an assumption made on the part of PHMSA that may be inaccurate.

PHMSA Response

    A number of the comments PHMSA received focused on a concern that
EFVs could trip inadvertently and may cause unnecessary service
disruptions. PHMSA agrees that variations in the configuration of
service lines make it difficult to impose specific sizing requirements
for various types of service lines and customers. However, if an
operator installs an EFV and operates it in accordance with a
manufacturer's specifications, the EFV should operate safely without
the need for a prescriptive sizing requirement even when customer gas
usage changes, unless the change were so large as to require a new
service line.
    Overall, PHMSA disagrees with the comments that EFVs are prone to
failure and inadvertent tripping due to variations in gas flow,
location, etc. Research and available data has shown very few failures
with EFVs in actual usage. Operators in the United States have gained
considerable experience with EFVs since 1999 mainly with SFRs. The NRRI
conducted a survey on EFV installation and operators' experiences with
EFVs installed on single family residential service lines found of 2.5
million EFVs installed on SFRs only 223 failed.\4\ In Europe, BEGAS,
the government owned gas company in Eastern Austria, reported that EFVs
have been installed since 1993 on service lines to hospitals, large
facilities, production plants, etc. Out of 26,000 BEGAS installations
there have been no spurious failures.\5\ PHMSA maintains proper
operator installation using manufacture direction and maintenance of
EFVs is paramount to their success. Therefore, PHMSA is not proposing a
protocol for EFV installation. PHMSA is only advising operators to
install EFVs as the manufacturer directs and the service safely
requires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Survey on Excess Flow Valves: Installations, Cost,
Operating Performance and Gas Operator Policy'', Ken Costello, The
National Regulatory Research Institute, March 2007.
    \5\ ``Operational Experiences with Excess Flow Valves for
Service Lines and Main Lines in Network Operation'', Peter Masloff,
Technology Department Director, BEGAS--Burgenlandische
Erdgasversorgungs AG. http://pipelife-gasstop.com/media/gasstop/pdf_englisch/GWF_7_2003_Excess-Flow-Valves_Experience-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operators and manufacturers that PHMSA contacted stated they
typically size an EFV in such a way that it trips at 20% to 30% above
the maximum service load it will encounter. It is possible that this
trip point could be too high for small leaks, however, EFVs are
intended to react to ruptures, not small holes.
    Likewise, one commenter mentioned winter time excavation of lines
to repair them due to EFV failure was a concern. PHMSA suggests that
digging in frozen ground in winter is not any more difficult than
digging concrete or curbside if valve is located underneath. Again,
PHMSA believes, proper sizing of an EFV is the key to avoiding all
these issues. PHMSA has surveyed twice in the past, and there were only
one or two instances of EFV failure in greater than a million services
over many years. All major EFV manufacturers PHMSA contacted indicated
that they are available to help operators to properly size their
valves.
    PHMSA received no information to indicate that pressure ratings
and/or the size of commercially available EFVs are a problem for the
expansion of EFVs to certain other types of service. Currently, the
normal minimum pressure design (the minimum anticipated design
pressure) is 10 psig. The maximum pressure of composite materials (250
psig), plastic (125 psig), and steel (1,000 psig and up), does not pose
a problem. There is no pressure limit on an EFV's performance except
that, when activated, the EFV seat must be able to withstand the
pressure. The pressure limit is normally constrained by the design of
the carrier pipe. EFVs covered by ASTM F2138 must have a maximum inlet
pressure of at least 125 psig, while ASTM F1802 applies to EFVs with a
pressure rating of up to 125 psig. However, for very high-volume EFV
applications, such as those for industrial customers, technical
standards may need to address operating design pressures that exceed
125 psig.
    Therefore, PHMSA proposes to expand EFV applications to new or
replaced service lines for SFRs with branched lines; multi-family
installations, including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes with
individual meter sets and known customer loads not exceeding 1,000
SCFH; and small commercial customers with known loads not exceeding
1,000 SCFH. EFVs will not be required in the above-mentioned
applications if one of the existing Sec.  192.383 exceptions is
present.
    While the proposed expansion of EFVs would have costs, PHMSA
believes the costs are justified by the added protection for gas
customers, as the only proposed exceptions are for large apartment
buildings, industrial or commercial users for whom EFVs may not be
practical due to inherent design complexity and continuous supply
demands. In those situations (loads exceeding 1,000 SFCH), PHMSA
believes curb valves will provide the best possible option for improved
safety at this time. PHMSA does not have definitive data, but some
commenters stated that 2% to 5% of customers would fall into one of the
exceptions for EFVs, which would include many of those facilities over
with loads exceeding 1,000 SFCH.
A.2. Additional Challenges Not Addressed by the Interim Evaluation
    The ANPRM also solicited comments on whether additional challenges
existed beyond those discussed in the Interim Evaluation. MAE commented
that the addition of more EFVs in natural gas systems could create an
increase in safety hazards resulting from the maintenance of failed
EFVs and EFVs that fail to trip on small leaks (i.e., pinhole
corrosion). These safety hazards would be due to increased excavation
activities, which place more workers in high-traffic and congested
areas. MAE also mentioned that excavation contractors may be less
cautious around service lines if they believe they will not leak
because of an installed EFV. TPA stated that the mandated use of EFVs
for new or replaced transmission or gathering lines should not be
pursued until further study is completed.

PHMSA Response

    MAE's comment regarding excavation damage prevention can be
addressed with proper EFV installation techniques and the normal course
of training for pipeline operator personnel, including training on
excavation damage prevention. Excavation contractors hired by operators
go thru same damage prevention training as operators regarding safe
digging practices and are aware of the dangers of gas leaks and
explosions. In regard to TPA's comment, PHMSA agrees at this time and
is proposing to expand EFV use only to distribution lines, not
gathering or transmission lines. PHMSA has found that there is a lack
of experience with EFVs on gathering and transmission lines in addition
to problems with contaminants and other factors.
A.3. Use of Curb Valves (Manual Shut-Off Valve) as an Alternative to
EFVs
    The ANPRM sought comments on the use of curb valves as an
alternative to EFVs. Most commenters agreed that use of a curb valve is
a viable alternative to EFV use in some cases. In fact, the City of
Ellensburg, Washington, stated the installation of a curb valve should
be considered by PHMSA to be equivalent to the installation of an EFV.
The City of Ellensburg mentioned that current Washington State
regulations require the use of a curb valve if an EFV is not installed.
    MAE, APGA, and APA commented that operators have experience with
curb valves, but their use presents certain challenges. The technical
challenges expressed by commenters with regard to curb valve use
include: Maintenance of the valve; location of the valve for
accessibility; third-party damage to the valve; recordkeeping as to the
location of the valve; ensuring the box does not place stress on the
pipe; and the delayed shut-off response inherent in curb valve design
during emergency situations. APGA commented that curb valves require
trained personnel to manually close the valve with a special key. APGA
further stated that ``squeezing'' off the gas in the line is sometimes
quicker than using a curb valve for stopping the flow of gas.

PHMSA Response

    Historically, curb valves have proven to be a very effective
mechanism for interrupting the flow of gas in both routine maintenance
situations and in emergencies. Other than a curb valves, distribution
operators have tools (large pliers) to squeeze pipe to shut off gas
supply. Curb valves require that a person make a conscious decision to
physically close the valve itself, thereby avoiding inadvertent
closures. Curb valves are slightly more expensive than EFVs and require
some maintenance and need to be located in an accessible site. The
primary disadvantage curb valves have is the time it can take to
mobilize to the valve site and close the valve.
    It is not technically feasible to expand EFV use to service lines
operating at loads exceeding 1,000 SCFH. This is largely due to issues
with reliable service, load fluctuation, the lack of experience with
EFV usage in larger applications, and the complexity of design issues.
Therefore, in the case of service lines operating at more than 1,000
SCFH, PHMSA proposes to require curb valves be installed and maintained
in such a manner that emergency personnel can access them. Although it
does not come at a prohibitive cost, the installation of curb valves is
slightly more expensive than the installation of EFVs.
A.4. Additional Situations Where the Installation of EFVs May Not Be
Feasible
    The ANPRM solicited comments concerning additional situations not
found in the Interim Evaluation where the installation of an EFV may
not be feasible or practical. AGA and SWC commented that they agreed
with the examples cited in section 10.3.1 of the Interim Evaluation.
MAE commented that lines containing contaminants, and distribution
systems with a history of transporting liquids, may create situations
where EFVs are impracticable.

PHMSA Response

    Section 192.383 currently includes exceptions for EFV installations
with regard to SFRs. With respect to MAE's concern regarding lines
containing contaminants and distribution systems with a history of
transporting liquids, the proposed exceptions would waive the EFV
requirement for those systems for which installing EFVs would be
impracticable. This proposed rule incorporates the existing Sec.
192.383 exceptions in place and would extend them to the additional
service line applications covered in this NPRM.

B. Economic Analysis Considerations

    PHMSA requested comments on the potential costs of modifying the
existing regulatory requirements. PHMSA requested that commenters
provide information and supporting data on the potential quantifiable
safety and societal benefits, the potential impacts on small
businesses, and the potential environmental impacts of modifying the
existing regulatory requirements. The economic analysis for the
installation of EFVs on services other than SFRs involves challenges
including the quantification and monetization of costs and benefits.
B.1. Categories of Service for Expanded Use of EFVs
    The ANPRM requested comments on section 10.3.2. of the Interim
Evaluation. This section describes the ``Categories of Services'' in
which PHMSA could expand EFV requirements. PHMSA sought input as to
whether the categories accurately represented current ``real world''
applications and which categories are most likely to benefit from EFV
expansion.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The categories of service from the Interim Evaluation are:
Branched service line serving single-family residence; Service line
serving one (or two adjoining) multi-family residential building(s)
with one meter or one meter header or manifold; Non-residential
services to space and water heat customers; Other applications where
the service line configuration or EFV specification is more complex;
and Industrial customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AGA largely agreed with the categories of service presented in the
Interim Evaluation, while MAE commented that the categories are
sufficient for economic analysis only. MAE further states that if the
rule in its final form creates different requirements among these five
categories, the rule may prove difficult to implement because an
operator may not be clear which category a service may fall into.
    AGA, APGA, AU, Nicor, and SWC advised PHMSA not to apply the EFV
requirements to all five categories named in the Interim Evaluation.
Specifically, the commenters supported all categories of service with
the exception of those with services requiring greater than 1,000 SCFH.
Those services with 1,000 SCFH requirements or higher are generally
sensitive to loss of supply and may have complex configurations not
conducive to EFVs. Nicor, APGA, and AGA commented that service lines
serving one multi-family building with one meter should be limited to
duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes with known loads not exceeding
1,000 SCFH, and that non-residential services to space and water heater
customers should be limited to 1,000 SCFH due to possible snap loads.
Additionally, AGA stated that there are factors to consider for
applying EFVs to non-residential service lines such as commercial food
sales, food service, and health care, and that these applications would
require unique analysis. These service applications are susceptible to
loss of service issues and

frequently have complex designs. SWC likewise stated that EFVs work in
applications not exceeding 1,000 SCFH. The industrial customer's
category was mentioned by all those commenting on this question as a
category not suitable for mandated EFV use due to unpredictable load
changes over the life of the service and inherent design complexities.

PHMSA Response

    PHMSA has reviewed the comments on the possible expansion of
categories of gas services requiring EFVs. PHMSA proposes expansion of
EFV use for only certain categories of service presented in the Interim
Evaluation. Specifically, PHMSA proposes to expand EFV requirements to
include:
     Branched SFR service lines off of existing SFR service
lines that do not contain an EFV and have a known load not exceeding
1,000 SFCH based on meter capacity;
     SFR service lines and branched SFR service lines installed
at the same time with a known load not exceeding 1,000 SFCH based on
meter capacity;
     Branched SFR service lines off of existing SFR service
lines with a known load not exceeding 1,000 SFCH based on meter
capacity;
     Multi-family residences with individual meter sets and a
known customer load not exceeding 1,000 standard cubic feet per hour
(SCFH) based on meter capacity; and
     Small commercial customers with a known customer load
(based on meter capacity) not exceeding 1,000 SCFH through a single
service line.
    Operators with services lines with loads exceeding 1,000 SCFH will
be required to utilize curb valves. Since PHMSA has found commercial
and industrial service lines often have complex designs and/or require
constant reliable service requirements, PHMSA has decided that these
categories of service are not good candidates for requiring EFV use.
Often these services meet or exceed a demand for 1,000 SCFH. PHMSA
therefore proposes the 1,000 SCFH threshold based on comments and PHMSA
experience however we invite comment.
B.2. Cost Factors Associated With Mandatory EFV or Curb Valve
Installation
    The ANPRM sought comments as to whether there are any other issues
related to the costs associated with mandatory EFV or curb valve
installation that should be considered aside from those mentioned in
the Interim Evaluation. Both AGA and SWC noted that cleaning labor for
EFVs on larger service lines, inadvertent trips and the subsequent loss
of business for commercial customers and accidental environmental
discharges are additional costs to the operator that PHSMA should
consider. APGA commented that EFV installation costs for large-volume
EFVs may be higher due to the fact there is less demand for them, and
PHMSA should not assume the same unit price as a SFR EFV. Both NGA and
Nicor mentioned that installation of EFVs may conflict with
restrictions placed by local jurisdictions on excavating paved roads to
access existing or install new EFVs.

PHMSA Response

    PHMSA has determined that installing EFVs by using manufacturer
guidelines should eliminate most EFV tripping errors. EFVs are
commercially available in a wide variety of pipe sizes. Some
manufacturers report that they make EFVs for larger than 2-inch IPS
(Iron Pipe Size) diameters (typical SFR size), and at least one
manufacturer is developing a 10,000 SCFH EFV. The principles of
operation remain the same as valve size and trip point increase, making
EFVs for larger loads and pipe sizes technically feasible. PHMSA also
noted that SFR installation of EFVs, which began in 2010, depended on
manufacturer guidelines for installation. No PHMSA guidance was issued.
Since 2010 the SFR EFVs required to be installed have resulted in no
false trips or failures if installed as manufacturer directed. PHMSA
has found manufacture guidelines to be well within the safety margin
and they know their product better than PHMSA in most instances.
    Additional costs for purging lines are minimal as documented by AGA
estimates. AGA states many operators either have already installed EFVs
on some services beyond SFRs or are planning to start. The price per
unit has decreased in recent years given the development, improved
availability, and quality of EFVs. Higher installation costs for high
volume EFVs have been taken into account in the cost/benefit analysis
through the averaged cost. Similarly, installation costs for curb
valves are more expensive than smaller volume EFVs and the cost/benefit
analysis considered that aspect.
B.3. Who should pay for the installation and maintenance of EFVs or
other alternatives and why?
    PHMSA sought comments as to who should pay for the costs of
installation and maintenance of EFVs. Comments were received from AGA,
SWC, and MAE concerning who should be expected to pay for the
installation and maintenance of EFVs or other alternatives if
applicable regulatory requirements were implemented. MAE stated that
operators should pay for the initial installation of valves, but any
changes to customer loads requiring EFV installation should be at the
customer's expense.

PHMSA Response

    Because operators would already be newly installing or replacing
pipelines, i.e. they would already have a trench open and be in place
to work at the site, the addition of an EFV adds only minor costs
(PHMSA estimates the cost of an EFV including installation is $30).
This is supported by the AGA response to the excess flow valve census
(Docket PHMSA-2012-0086, page 2), in which AGA indicated ``the
incremental cost per installation of EFVs is relatively minimal.'' AGA
further committed to expand the installation of EFVs beyond SFR
services by June 2013. This also supports the notion that cost is not a
major factor for the expansion of EFV use on new and fully replaced
service lines beyond SFRs as proposed by this NPRM. PHMSA additionally
utilized ANPRM comments which included numerical data on the costs for
EFVs provided by operators as well as PHMSA Technical Advisory
Committee \7\ input for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Joint Meeting of the PHMSA Technical Advisory Committees
held Dec. 11-13, 2012, Alexandria, Virginia. Transcripts available
at Regulations.gov., docket PHMSA-2009-0203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B.4. Are there any opportunity costs associated with the installation
of EFVs? A particular time of day that is optimal for installation? How
long does installation take?
    The ANPRM sought comment as to any opportunity costs and
installation timelines that EFVs or alternatives may require. AGA,
APGA, SWC, MAE, and Nicor commented on this question. These commenters
all mentioned the loss of gas supply as a potential opportunity loss
for customers due to the longer period of time needed to install an EFV
on larger service lines. Additionally, the operators would spend more
time and resources installing EFVs or alternatives versus maintenance,
construction, operation, and inspection activities. APGA responded that
EFVs do not need to be installed at any particular time of day, with
most installations occurring during normal business hours.

PHMSA Response

    Given industry's commitment to support EFV installation on new and

fully replaced service lines where practically and technically
feasible, PHMSA believes that the cost of installation of EFVs, as
proposed by the regulation, are sufficiently low that they will not
interfere with other operator expenditures. PHMSA agrees with industry
that the incremental cost per installation is minimal and would be
utilized during the new construction or the replacement of service
lines when industry resources (labor) are already at the installation
sites.
B.5. Are there any other issues related to benefits associated with the
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 Evaluation?
Does the methodology utilized in the Interim Evaluation appropriately
quantify the expected number of incidents or consequences averted? Can
a conclusion be satisfactorily made concerning the cost and benefits of
EFV or curb valve installation as presented in the Interim Evaluation?
    PHMSA asked for comments concerning any other issues that had not
yet been considered regarding benefits associated with mandatory EFV or
curb valve installation. IUB, NGA, MAE, and AGA commented on additional
cost/benefit factors that had not yet been considered. NGA stated that
upgrading existing EFVs to meet the increased demand loads will add
significant costs to customers and will conflict with restrictions
placed by local jurisdictions on excavating paved roads to access
existing or install new EFVs. Similarly, MAE stated that load changes
due to changes in ownership may cause extra expenses from service
modifications and industrial process equipment damage. AGA and SWC were
unaware of any additional cost/benefit factors other than those in the
Interim Evaluation.
    In terms of the methods PHMSA used in the Interim Evaluation to
study EFV expansion, the comments were generally supportive. MAE, SWC,
APGA, and AGA commented that they typically agreed with the methodology
used by PHMSA. However, some trade association comments also indicated
there was some concern about the assumptions PHMSA made with its
methodology. In particular, there were concerns with the ``incidents
averted calculation,'' including the associated root cause analyses and
assumed continued operations of all lines over 10 psi. AGA further
commented that the analysis could not draw reliable conclusions. IUB
suggested PHMSA should develop a separate analysis for each of the
classes of service.

PHMSA Response

    PHMSA's analysis was based on incident-specific data, which were
obtained from the incident reports submitted by operators. PHMSA
explained how it used the data, including the assumptions it made in
applying the operational and other data obtained from incident reports,
to filter past incidents that would likely not have been averted or
mitigated had an EFV been installed. The remaining candidate incidents
might have been averted or mitigated had an EFV been installed, but
PHMSA did not conclusively assert that all of those candidate incidents
definitively would have been averted or mitigated. However, based on
the analysis of the best available data, PHMSA is convinced that the
installation of EFVs on additional service lines could help avert or
mitigate future incidents. The candidate incidents, incidents that
PHMSA can classify as preventable by EFV installation, represent the
scope of incidents that might have benefited from an EFV during the
time period studied. PHMSA requests comments on whether the incidents
that PHMSA has identified are likely to have been averted or mitigated
if an EFV or manual service line shut-off valve had been in place. In
addition, PHMSA does not have an EFV sizing protocol, nor was one
proposed in the Interim Evaluation. The methodology for sizing EFVs was
one of the challenges described in section 9.1 of the Interim
Evaluation.

C. Technical Standards and Guidance for EFVs

    The OMB circular A-119, ``Federal Participation in the Development
and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards 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 regulation at 49 CFR 192.381 only
requires EFVs to be manufactured and tested by the manufacturer
according to an industry specification or the manufacturer's written
specification. The regulation does not prescribe a precise
specification. PHMSA solicited comments as to the need for the adoption
of consensus standards for EFV specification.
C.1. Should PHMSA incorporate by reference the following standards?
Manufacturers Standardization Society (MSS) SP-115-2006 Design,
Performance & Test, ASTM International (ASTM) F1802-04--Standard
Specification for Excess Flow Valves for Natural Gas Service, and ASTM
International (ASTM) F2138-01--Standard Specification for Excess Flow
Valves for Natural Gas Service?
    The comments received by PHMSA largely indicated that the
incorporation by reference of any standards for EFVs is not necessary.
AGA, supported by MAE, stated in their comments that manufacturers
already construct and test EFVs according to industry consensus
standards MSS SP-115-2006, ASTM F-1802, and ASTM F-2138. Operators have
been successfully installing EFVs using manufacturer guidance with no
known safety issues arising. Similarly, AGA and SWC expressed concern
regarding the incorporation by reference of any industry standards due
to the delay in updating the pipeline safety statutes, which in turn
would prevent the timely installation of the newest and best EFVs on
the market. As an alternative to PHMSA incorporating standards,
commenters suggested that PHMSA continue to allow operators to utilize
manufacturer installation guidance already available.

PHMSA Response

    PHMSA will not be incorporating any new standards by reference for
EFVs into the pipeline statutes at this time but may do so in the
future. All EFVs currently available have been manufactured and tested
to current consensus standards. Additionally, PHMSA has not
incorporated any standards for EFVs into the pipeline safety
regulations for SFRs and has not found any issues with that approach.
If the need for incorporation by reference does become necessary, PHMSA
will review the issue.
C.2. Are there alternatives to the standards referenced in C.1.?
    PHMSA also asked for comments on three current consensus standards
and if there are alternatives to them. APGA and APA stated they were
unaware of additional standards beyond those listed in the Interim
Evaluation, with the exception of ``MSS SP-142-2012 Excess Flow Valve
for fuel gas service, NPS 1 1/2 through 12'' for larger sized EFVs.
Similarly, MAE, deferring to AGA comments, stated it was aware of no
other standards except for the Gas

Piping Technology Committee (GPTC) Appendix G192-8 in the Z380 Guide.

PHMSA Response

    PHMSA is also unaware of any alternatives to the three standards
listed in the Interim Evaluation for EFVs for natural gas service. As
for selection and sizing guidelines, PHMSA will request GPTC to develop
comprehensive standards for selection, installation, and performance
testing of EFVs for a variety of design considerations and service line
configurations and operating conditions. This guidance will be in
addition to guidance provided by manufacturers and will act as a
supplement to address various situations which may not be elaborated on
in manufacturer guidance. PHMSA will also issue advisory bulletins if
we become aware of new conditions of concern for EFV installation.
C.3. Are guidelines or technical standards needed for developing and if
so, why?
    PHMSA asked for comments as to whether EFV guidelines or technical
standards are in need of development, and if so, why. Both MAE and SWC
commented that a standard approach or some sort of guidance for sizing
EFVs, and criteria for identifying adverse conditions, may be needed.
SWC agreed and stated that additional guidance, not necessarily
standards, need to be developed. SWC additionally asked PHMSA to issue
advisory bulletins if PHMSA finds additional conditions in which an EFV
installation is advisable. Likewise, AGA stated that the current
industry standards used in manufacturing are satisfactory, and EFV
performance testing using industry standards cannot be accomplished in
an economically, technically, and operationally feasible manner on
installed service lines.

PHMSA Response

    PHMSA finds that additional technical standards development for
EFVs at this time is not necessary. However, PHMSA is considering
requesting a new or existing industry committee to develop guidelines
for a standard approach to the sizing and installation of EFVs.
Industry guidelines have already been developed for the implementation
of (Distribution Integrity Management Program) DIMP by the GPTC and
industry gas associations. PHMSA believes these guidelines should be
developed in a more comprehensive manner to include the selection,
installation, and performance testing of EFVs for a variety of design
considerations and service line configurations. The identification of
operating conditions and system configurations that are incompatible
with EFVs could also be included in the guidelines.

D. Additional Comments

    Only one commenter, MAE, provided additional information and
supporting data with regard to additional potential costs and impacts
of expanding EFV use. Specifically, MAE stated that it had installed
5,102 EFVs on SFRs in 2010. If applications beyond SFRs were required
for service lines, MAE would have installed an additional 1,123 EFVs in
2010. MAE stated the estimated average cost for an EFV is $50.00 and
that there would be no anticipated significant impact on the
environment.
    Several comments from members of the public were received in
response to the ANPRM. One commenter, Courtney D. Brown, supported the
expanded use of EFVs to protect people in the vicinity of large
businesses and/or entertainment venues. Brown commented that the cost
of installing EFVs does not outweigh the loss of lives, homes, or
businesses when an incident occurs. Commenter Rebecca Lee Roter
expressed concern with the lack of regulatory requirements in place for
natural gas and transmission lines in Class 1 areas. Roter indicated
that these areas required little routine inspection and no emergency
plans.

PHMSA Response

    PHMSA received several additional comments on the topic of the
expanded use of EFVs. The information from MAE was helpful for PHMSA to
get a better understanding of the costs and impacts of expanding EFV
use. PHMSA has estimated an average cost of $30 per valve--see the
initial RIA for further discussion. Additionally, PHMSA is aware of the
concern for public safety expressed by Brown and Roter.

III. Section by Section Analysis

Section 192.381 Service Lines: Excess Flow Valve Performance Standards

    PHMSA is proposing to revise the language used in Sec.  192.381(a)
to remove the words ``single residence''. This change reflects the
proposed expansion of EFVs to applications beyond SFRs.

Section 192.383 Excess Flow Valve Installation

    PHMSA is proposing to revise Sec.  192.383(b) to include the
proposed new categories of service on which EFVs would be installed.
The existing category of service (new or replaced service line serving
a SFR) would remain. The new categories of service would include
branched service lines to a SFR installed concurrently with the primary
SFR service line; branched service lines to a SFR installed off a
previously installed SFR service line that does not contain an EFV; and
small commercial customers and multi-family installations. The existing
exceptions for EFV installation found in Sec.  192.383(b)(1) through
(4) would remain but would be moved to Sec.  192.383(c)(1) through (4).
    PHMSA is proposing the addition of Sec.  192.383(d) to allow
existing service line customers the option of requesting an EFV
installation on their service line if one or more of the exceptions
listed in Sec.  192.383(c)(1) through (4) are not met. Operators would
install an EFV at the request of customer on a mutually agreeable date
and time. This option would be available to service line customers on
existing service lines when the customer applies for service and for a
period of 90 days after service has started. Operators will rely upon
the appropriate State regulatory agencies to determine who would bear
the costs of installation for customer requested EFVs.
    With regard to the issue of installation costs of a customer
requested EFV, PHMSA has no jurisdiction concerning natural gas rates
or any costs incurred due to installation of an optional EFV at a
consumer's request. Rather, the appropriate State regulatory agency
will determine all issues related to the costs of installation.
    PHMSA proposes to add paragraphs (e)(1) through (2) which would
require that operators notify existing service line customers of their
right to request an EFV in writing. Master meter operators may
continuously post a general notification in a prominent location
frequented by customers. Operators must also have evidence of customer
notification. Operator evidence of notification could include such
items as a statement printed on customer bills or mailings. Small
Master meters would be ask to prove that they posted a notice at some
common location. Each operator must maintain a copy of the customer EFV
notice for three years. This notice must be available for inspection by
the Administrator or a State agency participating under 49 U.S.C. 60105
or 60106.

Section 192.385 Manual Service Line Shut-Off Valve Installation

    PHMSA is proposing the addition of Sec.  192.385 to require the
installation of a manual service line shut-off valve, such as a curb
valve, when an EFV is not installed in accordance with Sec.  192.383.
This proposed section also includes a

definition for ``Manual service line shut-off valve'' to further
clarify the applicability of this provision.

V. Regulatory Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published under the authority
of the Federal pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). Section
60102 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations
governing design, installation, inspection, emergency plans and
procedures, testing, construction, extension, operation, replacement,
and maintenance of pipeline service lines. Further, section
60109(e)(3)(B) states that ``the Secretary, if appropriate, shall by
regulation require the use of excess flow valves, or equivalent
technology, where economically, technically, and operationally feasible
on new or entirely replaced distribution branch services, multifamily
facilities, and small commercial service facilities.''

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

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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.'' Expansion of the use of EFVs and curb valves is a non-
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and the
Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. This proposed requirement has been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 13563 and
Executive Order 12866 and is consistent with the requirements in both
Orders.
    During the initial stages of the development of the regulatory
evaluation, PHMSA developed the survey recommended by the Interim
Evaluation, which was aimed at gathering data on EFV and curb valve
costs and benefits. PHMSA intended to send the survey to all operators
in order to ensure that any proposed changes were based upon
comprehensive and useful data. The goal was to have a better
understanding of the costs of EFVs on installations beyond SFRs from
those who have deployed them already, and on the costs and
effectiveness of curb valves. Nine companies were asked to pilot the
census, and a copy was published in the Federal Register.
    Both the census pilot and the comments to the proposed census
published in the Federal Register quickly revealed that company
databases are not currently set up to provide the necessary data. Load
and customer type data are stored separately from data on EFVs and from
data on incidents, and grouping customers into the census categories
would, in some cases, cost more in labor for the database work and
analysis than it would cost to implement this proposed rule itself. As
a result of discussions with industry representatives and the NTSB,
PHMSA chose to propose a rule similar to the framework included in
Section 22 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011.
    The initial Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which is included in
the docket for this rulemaking, does not address the benefits and costs
of the proposal to require operators to install EFVs on branched
service lines servicing SFRs because the benefits and costs of this
proposal were addressed in the regulatory impact analysis for a
previous rulemaking \8\. The initial RIA found that the estimated
monetized benefits do not exceed the monetized costs in all cases. For
the proposal to require EFVs on new or replaced service lines servicing
MFRs, the monetized costs exceed monetized benefits even when using
lower bound cost estimates. PHMSA believes that the proposals are
nevertheless justified by the significant unquantifiable benefits, such
as avoided evacuations and environmental damage from EFV-preventable
incidents, including incidents that could not be included in the
analysis because they do not meet PHMSA reporting criteria. EFVs also
provide protection against a low-probability but high-consequence
incident that could inflict mass casualties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Programs for Gas
Distribution Pipelines.'' 74 FR 63906 (December 4, 2009) RIN 2137-
AE15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule is assumed to affect approximately 1,289 natural
gas distribution operators and 222,114 service lines per year on
average. The RIA assumed valves do not have network effects, in other
words, each EFV operates independently and the costs and benefits of
EFV installation simply scale linearly. The total annual benefits of
the rule are $7,735,725 when discounted at 7 percent, while the costs
range from $4,381,734 to $17,848,499 depending on the costs of the
valve. At the 3% discount rate the total benefits of the rule are
$2,748,456, while the costs range from $4,967,145 to $20,311,030. PHMSA
requests public comments on its monetized estimates of the proposed
rule's benefits and costs.
    The following tables summarize the quantified benefits and costs of
this proposed rule at the 3 and 7% discount rates:

                     Estimated Benefits and Costs: Low and High Scenarios, 7% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Annualized       Annualized      Annualized
                                  Number of                         cost, low    cost, from DIMP    cost, high
           Category                valves         Annualized     scenario  ($15  Analysis  ($20-  scenario  ($50
                                 installed,         benefit       EFV, $10 curb    $30 per EFV)   EFV, $100 curb
                                   year 1                            valve)                           valve)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SFR (as upper bound estimate   ..............  $11-27 million..  ..............  $8 million.....  ..............
 for Branched SFR) \9\.
Multi-Family EFV.............         153,985  $1,144,372......      $3,102,295  ...............     $10,340,985
Commercial EFV...............          27,174  $1,434,683......         547,467  ...............       1,824,890
Industrial/Large Other Curb            40,955  $5,156,671......         550,073  ...............       5,500,726
 Valve \10\.
Notification and               ..............  ................         181,899  ...............         181,899
 Recordkeeping.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................         222,114  $7,735,725......       4,381,734  ...............      17,848,499
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Estimated Benefits and Costs: Low and High Scenarios, 3% Discount Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annualized      Annualized
                                                     Number of                       cost, low      cost, high
                    Category                          valves        Annualized    scenario  ($15  scenario  ($50
                                                    installed,        benefit      EFV, $10 curb  EFV, $100 curb
                                                      year 1                          valve)          valve)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Family EFV................................         153,985      $1,958,991      $3,534,722     $11,782,405
Commercial EFV..................................          27,174       2,748,456         623,778       2,079,259
Industrial/Large Other Curb Valve...............          40,955      10,240,363         626,747       6,267,467
Notification and Recordkeeping..................  ..............  ..............         181,899         181,899
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         222,114      14,947,810       4,967,145      20,311,030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional unquantified benefit areas include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Benefit and cost information is taken from the DIMP
rulemaking analysis. No information is available to estimate the
proportion of SFR service lines that are branched; PHMSA believes it
to be very roughly in the range of 10%. The DIMP analysis used
different estimates for the cost of an EFV and used the then-
prevailing USDOT values for injury prevention. Although DIMP did not
cover branched SFR, benefits and costs were calculated as if they
were, because there were no data available to create a more precise
estimate.
    \10\ This category is defined by service characteristics (size,
flow) for which a curb valve is more appropriate than an EFV. No
data are available on customer classification within the category,
though it likely includes larger MFR, commercial and industrial
facilities, and other similar customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Equity: Provides a fair and equal level of safety to
members of society who do not live in single-family residences.
     Additional incident costs avoided for which no PHMSA
incident data are available: Mitigates the consequences (death, injury,
property damage) of incidents when customer piping or equipment is
involved and thus the incident would not be reflected in PHMSA records.
     Additional incident costs which are not recorded in
incident reports, including costs of evacuations, emergency response
costs, and business downtime.
     Environmental externalities associated with methane
release (discussed in Appendix).
     Peace of mind for operators and customers.
     Protection against seismic events and intentional
tampering.

PHMSA requests public comments on methods and information sources that
could be used to quantify and monetize these unquantified benefits.

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). PHMSA
issues pipeline safety regulations applicable to interstate and
intrastate pipelines. The requirements in this proposed rule apply to
operators of distribution pipeline systems, primarily intrastate
pipeline systems. Under 49 U.S.C. 60105, a state may regulate
intrastate pipeline facility or intrastate pipeline transportation,
after submitting a certification to PHMSA. Thus, state pipeline safety
regulatory agencies with a valid certification on file with PHMSA will
be the primary enforcer of the safety requirements proposed in this
NPRM. Under 49 U.S.C. 60107, PHMSA provides grant money to
participating states to carry out their pipeline safety enforcement
programs. Although a few states choose not to participate in the
natural gas pipeline safety grant program, every state has the option
to participate. This grant money is used to defray additional costs
incurred by enforcing the pipeline safety regulations.
    PHMSA has concluded this proposed rule does not include any
regulation that: (1) Has substantial direct effects on states,
relationships between the national government and the states, or
distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of
government; (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on states
and local governments; or (3) preempts state law. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255; August 10, 1999) do not apply.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities,
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This NPRM
has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (``Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking'') and DOT's
procedures and policies to promote

compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential
impacts of rules on small entities are properly considered.
    This NPRM proposes to require small and large gas pipeline
operators to comply with the new EFV installation requirements. The
Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria for defining a small
entity in the natural gas pipeline distribution industry is one that
employs less than 500 employees as specified in the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.
    PHMSA calculated the number of small businesses affected by
reviewing annual reports submitted by gas pipeline operators and data
provided by Dunn and Bradstreet. PHMSA estimated that of the 1,289
operators who submitted an annual report to PHMSA on their gas
distribution activities, 1,221, or 95 percent, of these natural gas
operators are classified as being ``small business.'' The natural gas
distribution industry does have a substantial number of small entities
as defined by the SBA. However, we believe that this rule would not
have a significant impact on small entities because the additional
costs are minimal: approximately $30 per EFV installed and $55 per curb
valve installed. Industry comments have described these additional
costs as ``relatively minimal'' \11\ and the one-time cost is largely
offset by incident cost avoidance over the 50-year lifetime of the
valves. The notification and recordkeeping costs associated with the
new notification requirement for optional EFV installation are
estimated at $42 per firm annually, which is a minimal cost even for
the smallest operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ PHMSA-2012-0086-0003, Comment by the American Gas
Association, submitted July 17, 2012, pg. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the head of the agency certifies under Section 605(b)
of the RFA that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
PHMSA seeks comment on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. A
copy of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been placed in
the docket.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not result in costs of
$147.6 million, adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year to
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of the proposed rule. Installation of EFVs and curb
valves significantly protects the safety of the public and is
technically and economically feasible.

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    PHMSA analyzed this NPRM in accordance with section 102(2)(c) of
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332), the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), and
DOT Order 5610.1C, and has preliminarily determined that this action
will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. A
preliminary environmental assessment of this NPRM is available in the
docket, and PHMSA invites comment on the environmental impacts of this
proposed rule.

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

    This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this NPRM does
not have tribal implications and does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). It is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or
energy use. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not
designated this proposed rule as a significant energy action.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), PHMSA is required to provide
interested members of the public and affected agencies with an
opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping
requests. As a result of the requirements proposed in this notice of
proposed rulemaking, the following information collection impacts are
expected:
Gas Distribution Annual Report Revision
    PHMSA is proposing to revise Sec.  192.383, to require the
installation of EFVs beyond single family residences as currently
required. Further, PHMSA is proposing to add Sec.  192.385 which would
require the installation of manual service line shut-off valves. As a
result, PHMSA wants to track the number of new installations related to
these provisions on an annual basis. This will lead to changes to the
Gas Distribution Annual Report which is contained in the currently
approved information collection titled ``Annual Report for Gas
Distribution Operators'' identified under OMB Control Number 2137-0629.
PHMSA proposes to revise the Gas Distribution Annual report to collect
the number of EFVs installed on multi-family dwellings and small
commercial businesses and the number of manual service line shut-off
valves installed. Currently, operators are required to submit the total
number of excess flow valves installed on single-family residences and
the total number of EFVs within their system. Therefore, PHMSA does not
expect operators to experience an increase in burden beyond the burden
currently estimated for the Gas Distribution Annual Report.
Customer Notification
    PHMSA proposes to revise Sec.  192.383 to require operators to
notify customers of their right to request the installation of EFVs.
PHMSA estimates that approximately half of the 6,184 operators
categorized as either master meter operators or small LPG systems will
be impacted, resulting in 3,092 operators. This estimate is based on
the premise that only half of these operators have systems that can
accommodate an EFV. PHMSA also estimates that 1,289 gas distribution
operators will be impacted. Therefore PHMSA estimates a total impacted
community of 4,381 (3,092 master meter/small LPG operators and 1,289
gas distribution operators). PHMSA estimates that each impacted
operator will take approximately 30 minutes per year to complete this
notification and an additional 30 minutes per year to maintain the
associated records. Therefore, PHMSA will request a new information
collection to address these reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    As a result of the changes listed above, PHMSA proposes to submit
an information collection revision request as well as a new information
collection request to OMB for approval based on the requirements in
this proposed rule. These information collections are contained in the
pipeline safety regulations, 49 CFR parts 190 through 199. The
following information is provided for these information

collections: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control
number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract
of the information collection activity including a description of the
changes applicable to the rulemaking action; (6) Description of
affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection. The information
collection burden for the following information collection will be
requested as follows:
    1. Title: Annual Report for Gas Distribution Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0629.
    Current Expiration Date: May 31, 2018.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Abstract: This information collection covers the collection of
annual report data for information from Gas distribution pipeline
operators for Incidents and Annual reports. This information collection
will only be revised to reflect the amendment to the Gas Distribution
Annual Report which will not result in a burden hour increase.
    Affected Public: Gas Distribution Pipeline Operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 1,440. (no change).
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,300. (no change).
    Frequency of Collection: Annual.
    2. Title: Customer Notifications for Installation of Excess Flow
Valves.
    OMB Control Number: TBD.
    Current Expiration Date: Not Applicable.
    Type of Request: New Information Collection.
    Abstract: This new information collection will cover the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for gas pipeline operators associated
with customer notifications pertaining to the installation of excess
flow valves.
    Affected Public: Gas Pipeline Operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 4,381 responses.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,381 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Requests for a copy of this information collection should be
directed to Cameron Satterthwaite, Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP-30),
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd
Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone
202-366-4595.

J. Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received for any 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.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or at http://www.regulations.gov.

K. Regulation Identifier Number

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

    Excess flow valve installation, Excess flow valve performance
standards, Pipeline safety, Service lines.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 192 as follows:

PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 192, as revised at 80 FR 12762
(March 11, 2015), effective October 1, 2015, continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, 60116, 60118, and 60137, and 49 CFR 1.97.

0
2. In Sec.  192.381, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is revised
to read as follows:

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

    (a) Excess flow valves to be used on service lines that operate
continuously throughout the year at a pressure not less than 10 p.s.i.
(69 kPa) gage 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:
* * * * *
0
3. Section 192.383 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.383  Excess flow valve installation.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Replaced service line means a gas service line where the fitting
that connects the service line to the main is replaced or the piping
connected to this fitting is replaced.
    Service line serving single-family residence (SFR) means a gas
service line that begins at the fitting that connects the service line
to the main and serves only one SFR.
    (b) Installation required. An excess flow valve (EFV) installation
must comply with the performance standards in Sec.  192.381. After
January 3, 2014, each operator must install an EFV on any new or
replaced services line serving the following types of services before
the line is activated:
    (1) A single service line to one SFR;
    (2) A branched service line to a SFR installed concurrently with
the primary SFR service line (i.e., a single EFV may be installed to
protect both service lines);
    (3) A branched service line to a SFR installed off a previously
installed SFR service line that does not contain an EFV;
    (4) Multi-family residences with known customer loads not exceeding
1,000 SCFH per service, at time of service installation based on
installed meter capacity, and
    (5) A single, small commercial customer served by a single service
line with a known customer load not exceeding 1,000 SCFH, at the time
of meter installation, based on installed meter capacity.
    (c) Exceptions to excess flow valve installation requirement. An
operator need not install an excess flow valve if one or more of the
following conditions are 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 customer;
    (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.
    (d) Customer's right to request an EFV. Existing service line
customers, who desire an EFV on service lines not exceeding 1,000 SFCH
and not meeting the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section, may
request an EFV be installed on their service line. If a service line
customer requests EFV installation, an operator must install the EFV at
a mutually agreeable date. The appropriate State regulatory agency

determines whom and/or how the costs of the requested EFVs are
distributed.
    (e) Operator notification of customers concerning EFV installation.
Operators must notify customers of their right to request an EFV in the
following manner:
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, each
operator must provide written notification to the customer of their
right to request the installation of an EFV within 90 days of the
customer first receiving gas at a particular location.
    (2) Operators of master meter systems may continuously post a
general notification in a prominent location frequented by customers.
    (f) Operator evidence of customer notification. Each operator must
maintain a copy of the customer EFV notice for three years. This notice
must be available for inspection by the Administrator or a State agency
participating under 49 U.S.C. 60105 or 60106.
    (g) Reporting. Each operator must report the EFV measures detailed
in the annual report required by Sec.  191.11 of this chapter.
0
4. Section 192.385 is added to subpart H to read as follows:

Sec.  192.385  Manual service line shut-off valve installation.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Manual service line shut-off valve means a curb valve or other
manually operated valve located near the service main or a common
source of supply that is accessible to first responders and operator
personnel to manually shut off gas flow to the service line in the
event of an emergency.
    (b) The operator must install a manual service line shut-off valve
for any new or replaced service line, with installed meter capacity
exceeding 1,000 SCFH.
    (c) Manual service line shut-off valves for any new or replaced
service line must be installed in such a way to allow accessibility
during emergencies.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 7, 2015, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2015-17195 Filed 7-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P