[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72666-72671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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