[44 Pa.B. 5835]
[Saturday, September 13, 2014]

[Continued from previous Web Page]

Annex A

TITLE 52. PUBLIC UTILITIES

PART I. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION

Subpart C. FIXED SERVICE UTILITIES

CHAPTER 59. GAS SERVICE

SERVICE AND FACILITIES

§ 59.18. Meter, regulator and service line location.

 (a) General requirements for meter and regulator location.

 (1) Unless otherwise allowed or required in this section, meters and regulators must be located outside and aboveground.

 (2) Except in the case of an emergency, a utility shall provide written notice to a utility customer by first class mail or by personal delivery at least 30 days prior to relocating and subsequently installing a meter or regulator outside the customer's building. The notice must request that if the customer is not the owner of the building, the customer shall forward the written notice to the owner of the building. If the utility knows the current address of the owner of the building, notice shall also be mailed or delivered to that address.

 (3) The written notice must inform the customer and building owner of the equipment that the utility proposes to relocate, the planned new location and how to contact the utility to provide supplemental information that the utility may not have, such as the building's historic status. The written notice must include contact information for the Commission's Bureau of Consumer Services.

 (4) When necessary to install meters at multiple locations on a premises, a utility shall provide a tag or other means to indicate there are multiple meter locations.

 (5) When selecting a meter or service regulator location, a utility shall consider potential damage by outside forces.

 (6) The meter location must accommodate access for meter reading, inspection, repairs, testing, changing and operation of the gas shut-off valve.

 (7) When feasible and practical to do so, the meter location must accommodate the installation of the service line in a straight line perpendicular to the main.

 (8) Meters and service regulators may not be installed in the following locations:

 (i) Beneath or in front of windows or other building openings that may directly obstruct emergency fire exits.

 (ii) Under interior stairways.

 (iii) Under exterior stairways, unless an alternate means of egress exists and the meter and service regulator are installed in a well-vented location under stairs constructed of noncombustible material.

 (iv) A crawl space.

 (v) Near building air intakes under local or State building codes.

 (vi) In contact with soil or other potentially corrosive materials.

 (9) Unless caused by a customer's or building owner's violation of applicable gas safety or tariff rules, a utility shall pay the costs of relocating a meter or regulator when the relocation is performed to meet utility or Commission safety requirements.

 (10) Unless caused by a customer's or building owner's violation of applicable gas safety or tariff rules, a utility shall pay the cost of extending customer-owned facilities to the new meter or regulator location when the relocation is performed to meet utility or Commission safety requirements.

 (11) A customer or building owner requesting that a meter or regulator be moved shall pay the costs associated with relocation when the meter and regulator are currently situated in a suitable location under State and Federal regulations.

 (12) Utilities shall address meter, regulator and service line location regulations in their tariffs.

 (b) Outside meter or service regulator locations. Outside meters or service regulators shall be installed in one of the following locations:

 (1) When feasible and practical to do so, aboveground in a protected location adjacent to the building served, or as close as possible to the point where a production or transmission line is tapped.

 (2) In a buried vault or meter box.

 (i) The vault or meter box must be located on a customer's or building owner's property, either adjacent to the building served or near the gas main.

 (ii) Vaults may be located in a public right-of-way, subject to the consent of local jurisdictions as may be required.

 (c)  General requirements for vaults or meter boxes.

 (1)  A utility shall consider proper design and location criteria for a meter box, including:

 (i) Ventilation.

 (ii) Vehicular traffic.

 (iii) Soil accumulation.

 (iv) Surface water runoff.

 (v) High water table.

 (vi) Proximity to building air intakes or openings.

 (vii) Proximity to an excessive heat source as defined in 49 CFR 192.353(c) (relating to customer meters and regulators: location).

 (2) Piping installed through vault walls shall be properly coated to protect from corrosion.

 (3) Vaults containing gas piping may not be connected by means of a drain connection to any other underground structure.

 (4) When a meter box is located outside a paved surface, a utility shall consider fill, topsoil or sod being placed over the vault and, when feasible and practical to do so, choose an alternate location.

 (d) Inside meter locations.

 (1) Inside meter locations shall be considered only when:

 (i) The service line pressure is less than 10 psig.

 (ii) A meter is located in a building that meets one of the following criteria:

 (A) A building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the customer or building owner notifies the utility that the building is eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the eligibility can be readily confirmed by the utility.

 (B) A building is located within a historic district that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the customer or building owner notifies the utility that the historic district is eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the eligibility can be readily confirmed by the utility.

 (C) A building has been designated as historic under the act of June 13, 1961 (P. L. 282, No. 167) (53 P. S. §§ 8001—8006), known as the Pennsylvania Historic District Act, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (53 P. S. §§ 10101—11202) or a municipal home rule charter.

 (D) A building is located within a locally designated historic district or is eligible for the listing, or a building is individually designated under a local ordinance as a historic landmark or is eligible for the listing.

 (iii) Protection from ambient temperatures is necessary to avoid meter freeze-ups.

 (iv) A utility determines that a meter is subject to a high risk of vandalism based on the utility's prior experience.

 (v) A utility determines that an outside meter location is neither feasible nor practical.

 (2) Except for low pressure systems with service line pressure less than 10 psig, regulators must be located outside when a meter is located inside.

 (3) Installed inside meters must be attached to an operable outside shut off valve.

 (4) Meters installed within a building must be located in a ventilated place not less than 3 feet (914 millimeters) from a source of ignition or source of heat which may damage the meter.

 (e) Other meter or service regulator locations. A utility may consider a specially constructed cabinet recessed in the building wall, sealed from inside the building and vented to and accessible from outside the building.

 (f) General requirements for new service lines. When feasible and practical to do so:

 (1) A building may not have more than one service line.

 (2) A service line must terminate at the inlet valve of the meter set in the building in which the service line enters.

 (3) The service line must be installed in a straight line perpendicular to the main.

 (g) Application of regulation.

 (1) Beginning September 13, 2014, utilities shall comply with this section for new meter, regulator and service line installations in new locations.

 (2) Beginning September 13, 2014, utilities shall comply with this section when replacing existing meters, regulators and service line facilities.

 (3) By September 13, 2034, utilities shall complete replacement of existing facilities in compliance with this section or incorporate the requirements of this section in a distribution integrity management plan, whichever occurs first.

Attachment One
Amendment to 52 Pa. Code § 59.18 Meter Location
L-2009-2107155
Summary of Comments and Discussion

General Comments (Utility Industry):

 National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation (National Fuel) argues that changes to the Commission's existing regulations are unnecessary because the Commission's existing regulations are already consistent with Federal regulations. National Fuel states that the proposed amendments expand the existing state and federal requirements imposing new additional regulatory requirements.

 Equitable Gas Company, LLC (Equitable) agrees that the proposed regulation is inconsistent with Federal regulations, and imposes new and more onerous obligations. According to Equitable, the proposed regulation is based on the Guide for Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, which is advisory in nature and not meant to be a regulation. Specifically, Equitable argues that the language for proposed Section 59.18 is taken, largely, from the Guide Material for 49 CFR § 192.353, found in the Gas Piping Technology Committee's (GPTC) Guide for Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems (Guide or Guide Material). Equitable submits that the Guide Material contains guidance and information for consideration by operators in complying with Federal regulations. Equitable also states that the proposed regulation replaces the flexible language of the GPTC with mandatory language and leaves no room for utility discretion. Equitable argues that the proposed regulations are inflexible and will lead to a utility choosing between violating a regulation or refusing service to customers. Equitable also argues that the proposed regulation will allocate resources to unnecessary expenditures which are unwarranted by actual safety risks when these resources should be devoted to replacing pipeline. Equitable suggests that if a change to the existing regulation is required the new regulation should be redrafted to do no more than explain that meter set location is addressed at the federal level with citation to the pertinent Federal regulations and reference to the advisory Guide Material in a policy statement.

 Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) states that the Commission has already adopted the federal gas safety standards at 49 CFR 191—192 and 199, and that the proposed regulation imposes additional requirements that are unreasonable and/or unclear. PGW agrees with the statement in the Rulemaking's Conclusion section that the regulation should provide the utility with sole discretion to determine the location of meter sets. PGW submits that the Commission's concerns involve high pressure service and, thus, the regulation should be limited to high pressure services which will reduce the cost of relocating or replacing regulators to a more manageable level. Moreover, PGW declares that relocation of a regulator should not be required where there is an excess flow valve (EFV), or where one can be installed. Finally, PGW asserts that any such relocation should be coordinated with, and tied to, the utility's established main replacement program and schedule.

 Peoples Natural Gas LLC and Peoples TWPLLC (collectively Peoples) states that it supports the Energy Association of Pennsylvania's comments submitted on behalf of its natural gas distribution company members. In particular, Peoples requests that the Commission reconsider the proposed regulation in its entirety. Peoples states that it is concerned about the additional regulatory requirements beyond the Federal requirements that were previously adopted by the Commission. Simply put, Peoples is concerned about the removal of the utility's discretion in meter placement.

 PECO Energy Company (PECO) argues that utilities should not have to replace indoor meter sets by 2012 and divert resources from high-risk mitigation efforts to lower-risk mitigation efforts. PECO recommends that the Distribution Integrity Management Plans (DIMP) should control the replacement schedule. PECO also states that the additional requirements imposed by the regulation have no federal counterpart and are unnecessary. Furthermore, PECO states that this requirement will divert resources from its Accelerated Gas Infrastructure Modernization Plan (AGIMP). Finally, PECO suggests that distribution companies should have the option of charging a customer for these relocation costs if the customer creates the unsafe condition.

 Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania (Columbia) notes at the outset that both the Gas Safety Division's investigation and the proposed regulations that are the subject of this rulemaking were initiated prior to the adoption of Act 11 of 2012, and prior to the date the Federal standards require that natural gas utilities have in place a written DIMP Plan.⁹ Columbia submits that an essential consideration when evaluating enhancement to system safety is coordinating additional efforts, such as the relocation of meters, with the previously identified and prioritized risks in the utilities' system-specific DIMP Plans. Moreover, Columbia emphasizes that a number of new requirements are not requirements of meter sets today, rendering natural gas utilities immediately out of compliance when the regulations would be approved.

 Energy Association of Pennsylvania (EAP)¹⁰ states that the proposed regulations do impose additional regulatory requirements beyond the Federal regulations, contrary to the Commission's stated intent that no additional requirements are imposed by the proposed regulations. EAP also questions the necessity of making the provisions of the GPTC mandatory and imposing it as a regulation. EAP states that the GPTC is not meant to be used as a regulation. EAP argues that if the Commission wants to create a new regulatory scheme and impose greater requirements than the Federal requirements, then it should do so transparently and base these requirements on empirical data that has gone through a cost/benefit analysis. EAP requests that the Commission reconsider the proposed regulation in its entirety.

General Comments (Historical Commissions and Boards, Private Citizens, Preservation Groups, Civic Associations, and Government Entities and Officials)

 As a resident of a historic district, Patricia A. Jackson (Ms. Jackson) from the Old Fairground Historic District in Allentown, contends that meters and regulators should remain in the basements of properties within historic districts. Ms. Jackson argues that moving meters outside will risk damage to the units due to the urban nature of the properties. Ms. Jackson explains that damage can be caused by vehicles hitting the meters, snow piles, trip hazards, vandalism, misuse of meter sets (chaining trash cans to the set), and tampering with meters that do not have a locking mechanism, such as turning the gas off. Ms. Jackson also comments that outside meters are very susceptible to corrosion. Finally, Ms. Jackson argues that the meters are ''downright ugly.''

 Ms. Jackson suggests that the language be changed to just ''Historic District'' because many historic districts are not federally recognized, but state recognized. Ms. Jackson notes that Section 59.18(a)(9) would rule out the installation of most meters or regulators.

 Richard A. Niesenbaum (Mr. Niesenbaum) from Old Allentown sets forth the same arguments as Ms. Jackson and adds that utilities should be held responsible for the quality of their work and any damage that they cause. Lori Young from Allentown expressed many of the same concerns as Ms. Jackson.

 Geoffrey Brace (Mr. Brace) from Old Allentown comments that the Proposed Regulation does not allow local governments to ensure public safety, and local governments will be left to the mercy of the utilities. Mr. Brace argues that placing meter sets in front of houses in urban areas presents the risk of vehicles running into the meters and references the incident in Allentown where an out of control truck ran over a curb and damaged three properties. Mr. Brace states that if an event like this were to occur and a meter set was present in front of the property, there would be a very serious safety risk.

 June Robinson from Bethlehem argues that historic properties should be exempted from the requirement that meter sets be located at the front of the property to preserve the beauty and uniqueness of these areas.

 Janina White from Allentown comments that she does not want meter sets on her block or anywhere because they are ''ugly, monstrous things'' and ''turn a neighborhood into a slum.'' Charlie Versaggi from Allentown argues that utilities should suspend their work on meter sets and focus on gas main replacements, because this is where the true safety issue lies. He also argues against placing meter sets in front of historic properties until an aesthetically acceptable alternative is created.

 Shane Fillman (Mr. Fillman) also lives in the old Allentown Historic District and set forth the same arguments as Ms. Jackson. Mr. Fillman explains that the community residents would ideally like to see all equipment remain in the basement and have a gas vent installed to allow any discharge from the regulator when high pressure gas is being supplied to the property. In the alternative, Mr. Fillman suggests having a buried vault on the outside of the property concealing all of the equipment in a safe and corrosion free manner. Finally, Mr. Fillman does not agree with the Commission's Gas Safety Director's reasons for not advocating for gas vents instead of a gas regulator.

 Edward Winter from Philadelphia asserts that utilities should not be allowed to place meter sets in the front of homes, because it creates a negative aesthetic effect. Francis J. Schmitt (Mr. Schmitt) from Pittsburgh contends that placing meter sets in the front of homes has a negative aesthetic effect and thus lowers property values. He suggests that utilities be prevented from placing meter sets in front of homes and be required to move those presently in this location. Mr. Schmitt believes that with the development of remote gas and electric meter reading devices there is no need to make visible in front of homes, especially historic homes, the rusty pipes and rusty meters or industrial-looking configurations associated with keeping track of how much gas or electricity a building uses. The Callowhill Neighborhood Association in Philadelphia argues against placing meters outside buildings due to the negative aesthetic effect.

 Michael H. O'Brien, a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, (Representative O'Brien) comments on behalf of Queen Village Neighbors Association, Society Hill Civic Association, residents of Northern Liberties and Fishtown, and members of the Preservation Alliance. Representative O'Brien argues against limiting historic districts to those that are federally recognized and comments on the negative aesthetic effects presented by the outside location of gas meter sets. Representative O'Brien contends that the Commission needs to clarify the rules to ensure utilities cannot just do what they interpret to be proper, thereby putting the public safety at risk. Furthermore, Representative O'Brien is concerned about the negative impact exterior utility equipment would have upon the historic character and general aesthetic of neighborhoods.

 Elizabeth S. Rogan (Ms. Rogan), the President of the Lower Merion Township Historic Architectural Review Board and Historical Commission, states that the township contains ten Historic Districts and argues that the Proposed Regulation should not limit Historic Districts to those that are federally recognized. She argues that the definition of Historic District should specifically include local historic districts designated by municipalities, as well as to any other buildings designated as locally significant. Ms. Rogan also contends that the Commission should consider alternatives, such as locating the meter set on the side or rear of the building, screening the equipment with fences or plants, or minimizing the appearance of the meter set by painting it. In addition, she states that the Proposed Regulation should require a process for utilities to notify property owners about projects and allow the property owners to participate and make informed decisions about where the meter will be relocated.

 The Lower Merion Township Historical Commission sets out comments similar to the other historical commissions. Melissa McSwigan (Ms. McSwigan) from Pittsburgh is opposed to the requirement that meters be located outside and should only be done with the building owner's approval. She states that property owners should be able to make this decision regardless of whether the property is in a Historic District or not. Moreover, Ms. McSwigan finds multiple meters in plain view to be extremely unsightly. Alexander Rolon from Allentown argues against an outside location for meter sets due to the negative aesthetic effect and the safety issues presented by an urban environment. Susan N. Fuller from Allentown sets forth comments similar to those submitted by Ms. Jackson.

 Nicholas Kyriazi is living in the Deutschtown Historic District in Pittsburgh and states that the aesthetics of all row-houses are negatively impacted by outside meter sets. He also references the safety issues present with outside meter sets in urban areas. Gracia Perilli and Kim Ceccatti from Allentown set forth the same arguments as Ms. Jackson. Thomas Yuracka from Allentown also has aesthetic and safety concerns with respect to UGI locating gas meters outside and is prepared to discontinue his services with UGI over this issue.

 D. Gregory Shamp (Mr. Shamp) from Allentown argues that UGI should pay for updating infrastructure from its profits, and these costs should not be passed on to ratepayers. Mr. Shamp also sets forth the same arguments as other historical property owners with respect to outside meter sets and public notification and will continue to fight against defacing historic structures.

 Preservation Pennsylvania argues that utilities should be required to notify property owners about projects and provide property owners with complete information and sufficient time to make informed decisions. Preservation Pennsylvania states that this process should include providing information to property owners through the mail, the media, and municipalities. Preservation Pennsylvania submits that public meetings should be held with representatives from the utilities to allow the public to have input in projects and allow enough time for property owners to switch to an alternative energy source if they do not want the proposed project on their property. Moreover, Preservation Pennsylvania seeks change to the proposed rulemaking to provide adequate protection for historic properties. Preservation Pennsylvania also espouses many of the concerns expressed by the Township of Lower Merion.

 Philadelphia Historical Commission (PHC) states that its purpose is to safeguard historical resources in one of our country's most historic cities and argues that the Proposed Rulemaking should protect historic districts from the physical and visual effect of outside gas meter sets. PHC comments that the language in the proposed regulation identifying historic resources is not only vague, but is also not customary in historic preservation discourse.

 PHC suggests adding the following language as Section 59.18(a)(13):

(13) Properties shall be considered historic if they are:

(i) individually listed on or within a historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or,

(ii) individually listed on or within a historic district listed on a register of historic places regulated by a local government recognized as a Certified Local government by the National Park Service and Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission.

 The PHC contends that historic preservation considerations should be taken into account when considering where and how to install gas metering and regulating equipment. Therefore, the PHC suggests adding the following design and location criterion to Section 59.18(b)(3):

(3) A utility shall consider proper design and location criteria for a meter box, including the following:

(viii) The physical and visuals impact of meters and service regulators on historic properties as defined in Section 59.18(a)(13).

 The PHC also asserts that the term ''considered'' used in the proposed regulation at Section 59.18(c)(1) is too vague and should be replaced. The wording in Section 59.18(c)(1)(i) is awkward and open to various interpretations. Therefore, the PHC suggests the following amendments to Section 59.18(c)(1) without comment on the clause related to ''high risk vandalism districts:''

(1) Inside meter locations shall be provided when:

(i) the subject property is historic as defined in Section 59.18(a)(13) and an outside installation will damage or obscure historic features and/or will be conspicuous from the public right-of-way.

 Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia (PAGP) comments that the Proposed Regulation does not sufficiently protect historic resources. PAGP argues that the utility should not have sole authority in determining the placement of meter sets. PAGP suggests that secondary façades should be the preferred location for meter sets, regardless of historic designation. PAGP recommends development of design guidelines for the appropriate location of meters and regulators. PAGP also suggests that the Proposed Regulation should include a requirement that property owners receive a written notice of proposed equipment relocation with details and illustrations of the proposed project at least ninety days before the utility starts the relocation.

 Numerous citizens wrote in support of PAGP's comments, namely: Sonya Shiflet, Carla Puppin, Samuel A. Streit, Craig Morton, Jim Murphy, Jonathan Rubin, Bill Maurer, Justin Brock, Brian P. McEntee, Brian & Marla Johnson, Marc Shaw, Megan Fenstermaker, Lee Sequeira, John Ulrich, Patricia & David Swan, Mike Seidenber, Stephanie Guerrera, Gregory P. Duffy, Matt Fumento, Jean Papaj, Guy Fissel, Katie Kelly, Ms. R.W. Delaney, Beatrice Ryan, Paul D. Neuwirth, Talmage Bremman, Britt Levy, Abigail Horn, Susan Tunnicliffe, Joan & John Kyler, Thomas Jackson, Eileen Wolfberg, Jeremy Koven, Adrienne Nikolic, Kathleena Formica, Rosemary Gifford, Dr. Lynn Rosenthal, Anne Seidman, Samantha Giuliano, Cynthia Schneider, Daniel Broderick, Ruth K. Crispin, Louis Scaglione, Nadine Lomakin, Michael McPhilmy, Kimberly M. Maialetti, Betsy Johnson, Meredith Laurence, Bryan Witkowski, Michael Hanowitz, Tom Maciag, Amy Shelanski, Jean D'Amico, Arthur Willson, Pauline Candaux, Catharine Ciric, Mehron Moqtaderi, Heather Gibson, Frank Schorfheide, Dave McBride, David S. Cohen, G. Eric Johansen, Cynthia Temple, Kathleen L. Dilonardo, Regina Colantonio, G. David Hammond, Anne Cecil, and Sandra Lark.

 Society Hill Civic Association of Philadelphia (Society Hill) submits that historical properties need to be protected from the disfiguration that occurs by placing meter sets in front of historic properties. Society Hill proposes an amendment to subparagraph (c)(1)(i) to reflect that outside meter locations should be prohibited and a clarification of the term ''Federally approved Historic Districts.'' Society Hill suggests that the Proposed Regulation should include a requirement that property owners receive a written notice of proposed equipment relocation with details and illustrations of the proposed project at least ninety days before the utility starts the relocation. Society Hill also asserts that utilities should be required to use the media for notification and hold public meeting to better inform property owners and allow for their participation. Finally, Society Hill contends that utilities should not delegate the authority to determine high risk vandalism districts, and the replacement of shut-off valves should be limited.

 West Park Civic Association and West Park Historic District (West Park) in Allentown states that it is opposed to the external placement of meter sets. West Park argues that the change is unnecessary, will not improve safety, creates new safety concerns, and is an unwarranted expense. Old Allentown Preservation Association (Old Allentown) states that the Proposed Regulation doesn't consider property owners' rights and that other options to mitigate safety concerns are available and should be reflected in the Proposed Regulation. Old Allentown also complains that UGI already fails to give notice or get property owner consent when work is being done, and the Proposed Regulation would allow UGI to continue this behavior. Old Allentown argues that the Proposed Regulation does not specify who will make the determination of appropriate meter placement.

 Center City Residents Association in Philadelphia supports the comments of Jonathan E. Farnham submitted on behalf of the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission, and the addition of subparagraph (a)(13) and the amendment of (c)(1). Queen Village Neighbors Association, Inc. in Philadelphia expressed many of the same historic preservation concerns advocated herein.

 The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) states that numerous municipal representatives are concerned about the adverse visual effects of outside meter sets. PHMC noted that it was unable to identify any locally adopted historic property regulations that stipulate the location of gas meters. PHMC also argues that definitions in the Proposed Rulemaking need to be clarified, because the current language is not consistent with federal or state historic preservation laws. PHMC explains that the intent of the term ''Federally approved Historic Districts'' refers to historic districts that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. However, the term ''Federally approved'' does not appear in either the National Historic Preservation Act or the Pennsylvania History Code and is not likely to be easily understood by practitioners or citizens. The current definition limits consideration to properties located in historic districts, but it is PHMC's opinion that this excludes many individual historic properties that might be impacted by meter location. In addition, the definition could be construed to mean only National Register listed properties or both listed and eligible properties, but the intent is unclear. PHMC recommends broadening the applicability of this rule to include individually designated historic properties.

 According to PHMC, the current definition also fails to recognize historic properties that are designated under local law. PHMC explains that in many instances locally designated historic districts (which are then subject to review and regulation) may also be listed in or eligible for the National Register, either in whole or in part. The Pennsylvania Historic District Act authorizes municipalities to ''. . . consider the effect which the proposed change will have upon the general historic and architectural nature of the district.'' Similarly, under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, a municipality may adopt a zoning overlay to regulate changes that could affect historic properties. PHMC submits that under either law the municipality typically relies on local design guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation to interpret and enforce the ordinance. In Pennsylvania, PHMC submits that municipal guidelines are silent on issues related to the location of gas meters. However, it is the opinion of the PHMC that gas meters would be reviewable under the authority of both laws, allowing municipalities to evaluate the appropriateness of the location if the meter can be seen from a public street or way.

 PHMC recommends that Section 59.18(c)(1)(i) be revised to read as follows:

An acceptable outside location is not available because the property is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, located within a historic district that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or has been designated as historic under the Pennsylvania Historic District Act, Municipalities Planning Code, or municipal home rule charter.

 PHMC also recommends that the Proposed Rule require utilities to develop design guidelines to address common issues related to meter placement and incorporate these guidelines into their tariffs. Finally, PHMC requests that the PUC hold public meetings in communities with historic properties so these issues may be addressed comprehensively.

 State Senator Jim Ferlo (Senator Ferlo) comments in favor of protecting historic resources. His arguments include redefining historic districts with input from the Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission, defining high vandalism districts, requiring public notification/participation from the NGDCs considering the adverse visual effect of outside meters, and developing design guidelines.

 The Historical Architectural Review Board of Lancaster sets out comments similar to the other preservation societies and commissions, including recommending a more specific definition for historic district, suggesting utilities be required to provide design guidelines, and implementing public notice standards for notifying property owners. The City of Lancaster Mayor J. Richard Gray, and Lois Groshong, Chairperson of City of Lancaster Historical Commission, advance arguments similar to other commenters with historical property concerns, including the definition of historic district, clarification of alternative locations for meters, clear delegation of who will make the meter location decision, and increased public notification/participation.

 Mayor Ed Pawlowski of Allentown comments that gas meter sets should be in the safest and least visually obtrusive location. In addition, he proffers arguments similar to other commenters with concerns about historic properties. This includes redefining historic district and high vandalism districts, requiring gas distribution companies to account for visual impact of gas meter sets, and requiring public notification/participation between NGDCs and property owners. Finally, Charles B. Fisher copied the Commission on a letter sent to the Mayor of Reading, Vaughn D. Spencer, complaining about UGI gas meters as an eyesore.

General Comments (Independent Regulatory Review Commission)

 The Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) comments that Section 59.18 is not the only regulation governing gas meter and regulator locations. IRRC explained that the Commission established in Section 59.33 that the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) and its subsequent amendments effectively supersede the Commission's regulations, in that amendments to the CFR ''shall have the effect of amending or modifying the [PUC's] regulations,'' and the CFR addresses meter and regulator location. According to IRRC, in determining whether a regulation is in the public interest, it will review the criterion of ''possible conflict with or duplication of statutes or existing regulations.'' 71 P. S. § 745.5b(b)(3)(i).

 Here, IRRC concludes that this regulation would substantially duplicate the Commission's existing regulation at Section 59.33(b) and, further, would possibly conflict with the CFR which the Commission adopted by regulation. Furthermore, under Section 59.33(b), amendment to the CFR ''. . . shall have the effect of amending or modifying the [PUC's] regulations . . .'' Thus, IRRC submits that this provision raises the possibility of conflict between the proposed Section 59.18 and the existing Section 59.33(b).

 IRRC explains that if the final regulation contains similar provisions found in the CFRs, the Commission should explain why the proposed amendment is needed, viable, and not duplicative. If the final regulation does not contain similar provisions found in the CFRs, the Commission should explain how these mandates support the Commission's stated intent to make Pennsylvania's regulations consistent with Federal regulations and reconcile with the Commission's statement that, ''the proposed amended language imposes no additional regulatory requirements upon natural gas distribution companies (NGDCs) that these utilities are not already subject to under the federal regulations.''

 IRRC raises the point that although the Commission has identified safety issues that need to be resolved so that the public is provided with safe and reliable service, the proposed regulation seems to address only a portion of the identified safety concerns. In particular, according to IRRC, the proposed regulation includes only meter and regulator location. The proposed regulation does not address several of the other safety concerns identified by the PUC. Specifically, while the proposed regulation still allows inside meters, IRRC submits that it does not address the following:

 • Access to inside meters so that gas companies can comply with state and federal regulations that require leak surveys up to the meter. It appears that regulations may be needed for coordination of access between customers with inside meters and the gas utilities so that the required safety testing can be accomplished.

 • Plastic service lines which the PUC implies may be safer than steel based on the statement that the combination of steel service line and inside meter set is a high-risk factor for natural gas incidents.

 • The use of excess flow valves as a safety device.

 IRRC states that the Commission should either revise the final regulation to address these other safety concerns, or explain why the regulation does not address these other safety concerns identified by the Commission.

 To determine whether a regulation is in the public interest, IRRC considers economic impact and implementation procedures. According to IRRC, commentators have stated that the proposed regulation establishes some rules that have no counterpart in the federal regulations, such as § 59.18(a)(1) and (2), which IRRC submits contradicts the Commission's stated intent. IRRC notes further that the Commission has not explained which state and federal provisions are inconsistent, or how the Commission's regulations could conflict. IRRC states that public commenters have argued that the mandates may lead to increased costs due to the elimination of NGDCs' flexibility and discretion. IRRC asserts that it also received numerous comments from preservation/neighbor- hood associations and individual homeowners commenting that the proposed regulation would fail to sufficiently protect historic resources and neighborhoods from adverse effects caused by inappropriate meter installations. IRRC also submits that it does not see excess flow valves offered in the proposed regulatory language as an alternative to meter set relocation. IRRC argues that if the Commission chooses to proceed with the rulemaking, the Commission should make appropriate revisions in the final regulation and/or its applicable responses to the Regulatory Analysis Form (RAF) to address EFV as an alternative to relocating inside meter sets outside. IRRC notes that the comments indicate the proposed regulation does create additional regulatory requirements that exceed federal requirements and removes the NGDC's use of discretion.

 In order to clearly establish and support this rulemaking's intent, IRRC recommends that the Commission review and revise its Preamble and responses in the RAF prior to submitting a final regulation. IRRC questions the Commission's support for the regulation based on safety concerns stating that the Commission has not established a direct link between reportable incidents and leaks at inside meters, i.e., the leak was outside but the gas entered the basement, leading to the incident.

 IRRC then asks why the Commission did not convene a stakeholders group. IRRC questions whether the Commission has adequately considered the proposed regulation's impact on homeowners and communities with historic character, an asset which these communities consider to be an essential component of their community. IRRC specifically noted the following comments of gas utilities:

 • The proposed regulation will impose additional requirements beyond the CFR previously adopted by the PUC.

 • The modifications eliminate utility discretion and flexibility without articulating a basis for the mandates and without consideration of the limited situations where the proposed requirements would be impractical and result in increased costs.

 • The exceptions for historic districts and high-risk vandalism districts are not sufficiently clear.

 • The proposed revision to require all inside regulators connected to steel service lines to be relocated to the outside by December 31, 2020, is contrary to the stated intent of the [PUC] to provide ten years to accomplish relocation and, moreover, is an arbitrary deadline.

 • Contrary to the PUC's statements, the proposed regulation does not implement provisions for excess flow valves.

 • There are also concerns with the details of cost allocations when a meter was originally installed by the utility in a safe location, but the customer created the need to relocate the meter by an action such as remodeling a basement in a way that the meter no longer meets safety requirements.

 IRRC recommends that the Commission withdraw this regulation. However, if the Commission does not withdraw the regulation, IRRC recommends that it conduct stakeholder meetings with gas utilities and commentators, including those with knowledge of ordinances regulating historic properties. Based on this input, the Commission can develop safety requirements for the appropriate placement of gas meter sets which afford NGDCs discretion and flexibility while maximizing protection of both the public and Pennsylvania's historic properties. Additionally, IRRC strongly recommends that the Commission publish an advance notice of final rulemaking to allow the public and standing committees the opportunity to review any revisions that the Commission makes to the regulatory language before submittal of a final-form regulation.

 IRRC references commentators concerns with the December 31, 2020 deadline for relocation of regulators connected to steel service lines. The commentators raised concerns about how this schedule will affect their planning, which allegedly already takes into consideration prioritization of system risk and operational concerns.

Response to Independent Regulatory Review Commission Comments

 Section 59.18 is currently limited with respect to providing regulatory requirements for locating meters. The regulation merely provides that meters can be installed inside or outside the building with a few location requirements. Our Proposed Rulemaking Order (page 1) acknowledged that the existing regulation is inadequate.

 IRRC notes that the Commission in Section 59.33 adopts the pipeline safety laws including 49 CFR Parts 191—193, 195 and 199 that address meter and regulator location. We do not believe that our adoption of these minimum safety standards in Section 59.33(b) conflicts or duplicates the proposed regulations. Section 59.33(b) is clear that the Federal regulations are the minimum safety standards that apply to natural gas public utilities. In fact, we agree with the commentators that the proposed Section 59.18 is taken, largely, from the Guide Material and not the Federal regulations. As guidelines they are information for consideration by operators. They are in effect ''best practices'' recommendations but are not required, nor do they have the force and effect of a regulation. We submit that specifying mandatory requirements for meter, regulator and service line locations is necessary to protect the safety of the public and, therefore, is in the public interest. That being said, we disagree that the language is inflexible and leaves no room for utility discretion. The proposed regulation allows the utility in many instances to deviate from the general rule or requirement if it is not ''feasible and practical to do so.'' Therefore, the utility will retain discretion in applying this regulation.

 We have further reviewed the Federal regulation 49 CFR Parts 192.351—383 and do not believe the proposed regulation conflicts with the Federal requirements. The scope of §§ 192.351—383 prescribes minimum requirements for installing customer meters, service regulators, service lines, service line valves, and service line connections to mains. Section 192.353 addresses location of customer meters and regulators and § 192.355 addresses protection from damage. We do not believe these provisions conflict with the proposed regulation and none of the commentators have been specific in identifying the conflicting provisions or duplication. The other provisions of the Part mostly address technical installation requirements rather than location.

 The Commission further acknowledges that the proposed regulations address similar provisions that involve meter and regulator locations. However, the specific provisions should not be considered conflicting or duplicative. For example, § 192.353(a) requires that ''each meter and service regulator, whether inside or outside a building must be installed in a readily accessible location.'' Annex A under paragraph (a)(5) requires that the ''meter location must accommodate access for meter reading, inspection, repairs, testing, changing, and operation of the gas shut-off valve.'' Rather than conflicting or duplicative, the proposed regulation is merely more specific in terms of addressing meter access.

 Some of the commentators argued that the Guide Material contains guidance and information for consideration by operators in complying with Federal regulations. Given that we have relied on the Guide Material in drafting the proposed regulation, we do not believe our proposed regulation could then conflict with the Federal regulations. Moreover, our proposed regulation does not duplicate the minimum safety standards of the Federal regulation. Clearly, the proposed regulations are more detailed and address additional regulatory requirements for meter and service regulator locations such as notice, access, building openings, fire exits, stairways, crawl spaces and building air intakes. Therefore, since our adoption of the Federal regulations is only as minimum safety standards, we can implement regulations that go farther and are more comprehensive regulatory requirements.

 We do acknowledge that the proposed regulation would impose additional regulatory requirements for NGDCs that will address safety issues. In addition, we will be revising the regulation to address safety issues that were not addressed such as access to inside meters, plastic service lines, and use of excess flow valves. Finally, we have also addressed historic preservation concerns over meter and regulator location issues in historic areas.

Section 59.18 Meter and Regulator Location

(a)(1)—When practical, a building may not have more than one service line. Service lines must terminate in the building in which the service line enters.

 National Fuel recommends deleting the second sentence because of considerations for large industrial customers that sometime require a service line to enter multiple buildings. National Fuel explains that this requirement could be unnecessarily restrictive and problematic for customers and utilities where unique circumstances exist.

 PGW states that it is not always possible to terminate a service line in the building in which the service line enters, and contends that the phrase ''where feasible'' should be included before the second sentence.

 EAP argues that this section should be more flexible, provide exceptions, and give utilities discretion. EAP suggests that ''where feasible and practicable to do so'' should be inserted at the beginning of the second sentence.

 IRRC comments that the first sentence in Section 59.18(a)(1) is ambiguous and the phrase ''when practical'' is subjective. IRRC states the regulation should specify the circumstances that would allow for an exception to the requirement that a ''building may not have more than one service line.'' IRRC also recommends having the second sentence about a service line terminating in the building in which it enters as a separate requirement.

 Discussion: We agree with the underlying sentiment expressed by IRRC that a regulation should be more specific and detailed with respect to the circumstances that would allow for an exception. However, while we could possibly provide some examples of circumstances that would warrant a building having more than one service line, we do not believe we could specify all the circumstances that warrant an exception. The Commission fears that limiting itself to a list of exceptions will compromise the regulation. We would agree that this determination could be based on physical circumstances and/or cost considerations. Therefore, we further believe that using words such as ''feasible'' and ''practical'' sufficiently defines the circumstances where an exception to the general rule would be supportable. Of course, the utility would have the burden of proving one service line is not ''feasible and practical'' if a complaint is filed over the issue and the matter would be resolved by the Commission. For purposes of comparison, we direct attention to the use of the term ''reasonable'' which is used throughout the Public Utility Code but could be viewed as vague.

 We agree with EAP's comments but shall not completely adopt its recommended language. Although EAP suggests that the phrase words ''when feasible and practicable to do so'' be used at the beginning of the second sentence, we believe it is more descriptive to use the words ''feasible'' and ''practical.'' If it is ''feasible,'' it is capable of being done, i.e. ''possible.'' ''Practicable'' is synonymous with feasible, since it references something not ''actually tested,'' but capable of happening. However, ''practical'' means that something has been ''proven'' and ''put into practice.'' See Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Therefore, we believe that the phrase ''when feasible and practical to do so'' is a more descriptive standard. In other words, it not only may be done or accomplished, but it has been done before or ''put into practice.''

 We agree with IRRC that the requirement about a service line terminating in the building in which it enters should be separate, and have incorporated this change. Additionally, we shall move paragraph (a)(1) to new paragraphs (f)(1) and (2). Given that this provision addresses service lines, we believe that the subject matter warrants a separate subsection where service lines will be addressed.

 (a)(2)—Meters shall be installed at the service regulator. When more than one meter is set on a particular premises, the meters must be set at one location. When it is necessary to install meters at multiple locations on the premises, the utility operator shall provide a tag or other means to indicate there are multiple meter locations.

 National Fuel argues for adding ''When practical'' to the beginning of the rule for increased flexibility for unique circumstances, such as ''high pressure services.''

 Peoples argues that sometimes it is not practicable, feasible, or economical to install the meter set together. Peoples uses the example of larger customers with remote meter sets and long service lines served from medium pressure mains. In this situation, the meter is installed near the main line and the service regulator is installed at the building, which enables the service line to operate at higher pressure and utilize a smaller pipe. The service regulator cutting the pressure from pounds to ounces is installed near the building. This design allows a larger customer to minimize the expense of installing the service line at their property because the smaller service line is less expensive. Peoples recommends that the phrase ''when feasible and practicable'' be inserted at the beginning of this subsection.

 Discussion: We agree that it might not be feasible and practical, or economical to install the meter set together. Therefore, we shall remove this requirement. We will also remove the second sentence of this paragraph because it conflicts with the third sentence that refers to meters at multiple locations. For better organization of subsection (a), we shall move the third sentence as a separate requirement to paragraph (2). Finally, to be more descriptive, we have added the words ''for meter and regulator location'' to the subsection title.

 (a)(3)—An outside, above-ground meter location must be used when availability of space and other conditions permit.

 With respect to Section 59.18(a)(3), IRRC notes that commentators raise concerns regarding who makes the determination, and what standard is utilized, when an ''outside, above-ground meter location must be used when availability of space and other conditions permit.'' According to IRRC, it is not clear what meets the standard of ''availability of space'' or what ''other conditions'' must be considered, and it should be clarified whether a property owner has the opportunity to participate in this decision. According to Columbia, the company has been adhering to this standard for a number of years. However, there are inside meters on Columbia's system that may have outside space available, but were originally installed inside. Columbia maintains that it should be clarified whether this regulation, if adopted, would apply to meter sets installed after the effective date of this proposed regulation.

 Discussion: We agree with IRRC's concern about the vagueness and uncertainty of the provision as written. The intent of the provision needs to be more focused. Rather than use the subjective phrases ''availability of space'' and ''other conditions,'' we shall insert a general rule that ''meters and regulators shall be located outside and aboveground.'' However, we still need to allow some flexibility in its application. We shall accomplish this by adding the exceptive phrase ''unless otherwise specified in this section.'' We believe these changes will provide specificity to the regulation that is currently lacking. Also, we believe the utility customer should have prior notice when the gas utility plans to install the entire meter set outside and above ground. Therefore, we have added the requirement that the utility customer receive 30 days written notice by first class mail or by personal delivery. The paragraph will be renumbered as (a)(1) because proposed paragraph (a)(1) has been moved to new paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2).

 (a)(4)—When selecting a meter or service regulator location, a utility shall consider potential damage by outside forces, including: (i) Vehicles. (ii) Construction equipment. (iii) Tools or other materials which could be placed on the meter. (iv) Falling objects, such as packed snow or ice from a roof.

 National Fuel argues for removal of the list of specific considerations because solely relying on the list could lead to exclusion of other safety issues. National Fuel also raises the issue of persons creating unsafe conditions and argues that the list could be used as a defense to a utility's claim for damages to its facilities. National Fuel uses an example of a customer piling snow over a meter and the meter being damaged. National Fuel argues that the customer should bear a utility's expenses for these unsafe conditions, and that the list of considerations could be used to argue that there is a statutorily created duty for the utility to anticipate this type of damage and the utility was negligent per se. National Fuel claims that deletion of this list of specific considerations will not change what the Commission is attempting to accomplish.

 IRRC considers Section 59.18(a)(4) vague since for every threat identified in paragraph (4) there is a potential for damage and it is not clear what is the due diligence on the part of the utility that will meet the standard. IRRC further questions how a utility can evaluate how meters may be safer in basements than in the front of a home where they could be hit by a vehicle. Furthermore, IRRC believes the term ''construction equipment'' is vague and that it should be defined, and the utility must also consider potential damage by tools or other materials which could be placed on the meter. IRRC recommends that the provision be deleted or explain what meter location would not have the potential for tools or ''other material'' to be placed on the meter and still meet other requirements in the regulation. Finally, IRRC finds subparagraph 4(iv) vague because it does not state what other ''falling objects'' the utility must consider.

 Discussion: We agree with NFG that utilization of a list of outside forces may exclude other considerations that involve safety issues. Clearly, having a meter or regulator on the outside near the street will raise the safety issue of vehicles crashing into the utility's facilities. Besides vehicles, there are too many possibilities that involve safety to try and identify the possibilities with a list. Therefore, we shall remove the list and end the provision at ''outside forces.'' Although this provision may appear to be vague, it is very specific that the utility has the obligation to consider potential damage when locating outside meter sets. The new paragraph will be (a)(3).

 (a)(5)—When potential damage is evident, the meter or service regulator shall be protected or an alternate location selected.

 National Fuel suggests that this section should clarify that the customer will be responsible for costs and expenses for installation of additional protection or relocation when the unsafe condition is due to the customer's negligence. According to National Fuel, after initial installation, the utility should not be held responsible for protection and relocation costs that occur due to a later change in conditions on the premises that is within the control of the customer or property owner.

 With respect to subparagraph (a)(5), IRRC questions how potential damage may be evident, who would make this determination, and how the Commission would enforce this regulation.

 Discussion: Since the meter or regulator would be installed by the NGDC, the utility would have to make the determination that potential damage is evident if it has notice of the condition. At the outset, we must assume that the utility would not install the meter set at the location where potential damage is evident, or that if protection was warranted, the utility would provide the protection. Furthermore, if an unsafe condition is created by the customer or property owner, we assume that the costs and expenses incurred by the utility for protection or relocation of the utility's facilities would be covered in the utility's tariff. Therefore, upon further reflection, we agree that the phrase ''potential damage'' is vague. Since any utility is already obligated to provide safe and reasonable service and facilities under Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code, this provision may be unnecessary. In other words, it is unnecessary to tell a utility that it must not create an unsafe condition or inadequately respond to an unsafe condition. We shall delete the paragraph.

 (a)(6)—Meters and service regulators may not be installed in contact with soil or other potentially corrosive materials. A utility shall consider the potential for shorting out the insulating fitting when choosing a location.

 IRRC submits that subparagraph (a)(6) needs clarity with respect to the standard for shorting out the insulating fitting when choosing a location.

 Discussion: We agree that the second sentence is unclear. That being said, to comply with Section 1501, we assume that the utility takes this factor into consideration in choosing a location. Therefore, we shall delete the sentence. We shall retain but modify slightly the wording of the first sentence. However, the phrase shall be moved to a new subparagraph (6)(VI) that identifies locations where meters and regulators may not be installed.

 (a)(7)—The meter location must accommodate access for meter reading, inspection, repairs, testing, changing, and operation of the gas shut-off valve.

 National Fuel argues for clarification of this section by adding language that the customer shall provide the utility access, at all reasonable times, to the meter or regulator for purposes of performing these functions. National Fuel states that sometimes customers refuse access to perform a work order that the customer doesn't want the utility to complete, such as a meter removal, meter relocation, or meter shut off/lock.

 IRRC notes that subparagraph (7) requires that the location accommodate access for activities including repairs and testing. IRRC submits that subparagraph (7) should address the coordination of access to inside meters between the gas utility and the customer so that safety testing can be accomplished.

 Discussion: While we agree that the customer should provide reasonable access to the gas utility to perform a variety of functions, we believe that this requirement should be addressed in a utility's tariff. Moreover, this responsibility of the customer has no bearing on location issues. Therefore, we decline to add additional language regarding a customer's obligation to provide access to utility facilities. We have renumbered this paragraph as (a)(4).

 (a)(8)—The meter location must accommodate the installation of the service line in a straight line perpendicular to the main.

 National Fuel argues for beginning this section with the phrase ''When practical,'' because it is not always possible or feasible to install a service line perpendicular to the main line, even though this is the preferred method.

 Equitable agrees that this requirement is too inflexible because there are circumstances where the meter physically cannot be located to accommodate a perpendicular service line, such as trees or landscaping, as well as the location of other utility infrastructure that can sometimes be an obstacle necessitating the location of the meter in such a way that perpendicular installation of the service line cannot be accommodated. Equitable believes that the flexibility found in the Guide Materials using the phrase ''normally permit,'' is more appropriate than the prescriptive language in the proposed regulation.

 PGW also recommends that ''where feasible'' should be inserted at the beginning of this subsection.

 EAP, similarly, responds that this section should begin with ''where feasible and practicable to do so.'' Columbia believes that it should be clarified whether this regulation, if adopted, would apply to residential meter sets installed after the effective date of this proposed regulation. In addition, Columbia notes that this standard may not always be feasible for commercial and industrial meter sets due to the cost and complexity that are routinely involved with such meter sets.

 IRRC asserts that the requirement that the service line be installed in a straight line perpendicular to the main should be deleted or explain why it is reasonable and the costs justified.

 Discussion: We agree that the requirement must be flexible to address unique circumstances. Therefore, we shall add the phrase recommended by EAP, with our modification which is ''when feasible and practical to do so.'' It will now be paragraph (a)(5). In addition, the provision contemplates that the service line should be installed in a straight line perpendicular to the main. We shall also add this requirement in subsection (f)(3) that addresses the general requirements for new service lines.

 (a)(9)—Meters and service regulators may not be installed in the following locations: (i) Directly beneath or in front of windows or other building openings which may be used as emergency fire exits. (ii) Under interior or exterior stairways. (iii) A crawl space with limited clearance. (iv) Near building air intakes.

 National Fuel notes that utility facilities should never be located where they would obstruct an emergency fire exit. National Fuel states that subparagraph (i) will restrict utilities from placing meter sets beneath or in front of windows or other openings that ''may be used as emergency fire exits.'' National Fuel argues that this is too broad of a restriction as any window large enough to fit a person may be used as an emergency exit, and that the Commission's purpose is not clear. National Fuel suggests that this section should focus on preventing placement of meter sets at locations that ''directly'' obstruct access to a window or opening used as an emergency fire exit.

 PGW states that the housing and building stock in the City of Philadelphia sometimes leaves it with no other option than to locate a meter or regulator directly beneath a window, door, or exterior stairwell. PGW states that it only does this when there are other means of egress from the building, and that it only installs meters or regulators under exterior stairwells made of non-combustible material that have adequate ventilation. PGW states that the regulation should be worded to include these types of installations.

 Peoples agrees with EAP's comments that there are places where it is impossible to find a location for a meter that is not near a window or door that could be used as a fire exit. Peoples also argues that this should be the case for all subparagraphs of subsection (a)(9).

 EAP suggests that meters should be able to be located near fire exits if the amount of gas that might enter a building is minimized. EAP argues that this section should state ''Unless measures are taken to limit the amount of gas that might enter a building, meters and service regulators should not be installed . . . .''

 Columbia presumes that this requirement would only apply to new installations. Columbia also makes the point that meters could be installed at a certain location in compliance with the proposed regulations, and subsequent actions taken by the customer could render the location in conflict with this requirement, e.g., a window, entrance/exit, or structure, such as a porch, could be built over the meter.

 Section 59.18(a)(9)(i)—(iv) address where meters and service may not be installed, and IRRC generally concludes that these provisions are vague. IRRC points out that with respect to these mandates nearly every window could arguably be used as an emergency fire exit. Also, given all the other restrictions, the Commission should not prohibit the placement of a meter under an outside stairway in all circumstances, and the Commission should be clear about what crawl spaces may be used. Finally, IRRC submits that it is not clear what ''near building air intakes'' means.

 Discussion: We agree with NFG's suggestion that we focus on preventing placement of meter sets at locations that ''directly'' obstruct access to a window or opening used as an emergency fire exit. We shall delete the words ''directly'' and ''be used as'' and put the phrase ''directly obstruct'' in front of ''emergency fire exits.'' We also agree with PGW's suggestion of requiring another means of egress when installing meter sets under exterior stairways and requiring adequate ventilation. We shall essentially adopt PGW's suggested language changes. However, we shall not adopt EAP language change about limiting the amount of gas entering a building based on vagueness. We believe our adoption of NFG and PGW's recommendations will address IRRC's assertion of being vague. In addition, we shall delete the phrase ''with limited clearance'' in subparagraph (iv) since a ''crawl space'' is a sufficiently defined area as ''a shallow unfinished space beneath the first floor or under the roof of a building.'' See Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Also, the term ''near'' in subparagraph (v) will be dictated by local or state building codes which standards may be different and change in the future. Therefore, we believe adding the reference to ''local or state building codes'' adds sufficient clarity and specificity to the requirement. This paragraph will now be identified as paragraph (a)(6).

 (a)(10)—When the Commission or a utility determines that a meter or regulator shall be moved for safety reasons, all costs associated with the relocation of such meter or regulator shall be borne by the utility. When a utility moves a meter in addition to the regulator, under this section, the cost of extending customer-owned facilities to the new meter location shall be borne by the utility.

 National Fuel argues that when relocation is required because of circumstances within the customer's control, the utility should not bear these expenses. National Fuel also argues that customers, who refuse National Fuel access to their homes for a relocation, should bear the costs when National Fuel has to come back later to do the relocation.

 Equitable states that this requirement is not part of existing federal regulation, would impose a new and additional regulatory requirement, and would create a significant level of capital investment for the utility. Equitable argues that the broad scope of the language is problematic because, in some areas, service lines and fuel lines are owned by, and are the responsibility of, the customer. Equitable also argues that in accordance with tariff provisions and industry practice these costs are the customer's responsibility.

 PGW states that a utility should only bear the costs of relocation when the meter or regulator is moved for safety reasons that have nothing to do with actions of the customer. PGW thinks this subsection should have an exception for unsafe situations that have been caused or created by meter tampering, unauthorized usage, or unsafe conditions created at the affected building.

 Peoples, again, supports EAP's comments. Peoples also argues that the term ''safety reasons'' should be defined in the regulation or be at the discretion of the utility. Peoples recommends that the definition should be ''a situation in which the utility believes, in its reasonable judgment, that the placement of the meter violates a provision of 52 Pa. Code § 59.18, the applicable federal standards or which poses a unique safety risk to the occupants of the premise where the meter is located.'' Peoples also argues that costs of replacement should be partially borne by customers when the customer creates or contributes to the safety concern. PECO argues that utilities should not bear the costs of relocating meter sets if the unsafe condition was caused by the customer.

 EAP argues that the cost of the relocation of customer-owned fuel facilities should not be the utility's burden, and that shifting this cost actually shifts the cost onto other customers. EAP argues that this subsection needs to be more flexible and allow for discretion. Although EAP agrees that the utility should bear the responsibility for paying for meter or regulator relocations where the work is initiated to address safety concerns, EAP notes that a blanket rule is not required under existing Federal regulations and marks a significant change to current practices in western Pennsylvania where, in many instances, service lines from the curb to the meter, as well as the fuel line downstream from the meter inside the building, are owned by the customer. EAP requests that the Commission consider the cost to ratepayers of this change in financial responsibility regarding extension of ''customer-owned fuel facilities'' to a relocated meter/regulator at a time when utilities are being encouraged to devote capital resources to pipeline replacement efforts. In support of its position, EAP has recommended specific revisions to the provision.

 For paragraph (a)(10), IRRC submits that the Commission should clarify how it intends for NGDCs to notify customers and discuss options. Furthermore, IRRC noted commentators' concerns about property owners who refuse access to their premises to perform meter relocation work, and who shall bear the cost if a customer's action has created or contributed to a safety issue.

 Discussion: First, we shall not attempt to regulate a situation where a customer refuses access. The utility should look to its tariff to provide a remedy. Although this requirement that imposes the costs on the utility may not be a part of Federal regulations, this new regulatory requirement is based on safety reasons. Therefore, even if the service is owned by the customer, if the move is based on safety reasons imposed by the utility, we believe the utility should be responsible for the costs. Similarly, and in response to PGW, Peoples, and PECO's concern, the utility should already have a tariff addressing damages to its facilities or the creation of unsafe situations caused by the customer. However, we shall amend the regulation to clarify a customer's responsibility if they are responsible for the unsafe condition. With respect to western Pennsylvania, if the utility initiates the movement of the meter or regulator for safety reasons, then the gas utility should pay for the cost, unless the unsafe condition was caused by the customer. We shall incorporate EAP's proposed modification.

 Finally, in response to IRRC's concerns, the customer shall be provided 30 days prior notice of the work. This notice is required under paragraph (a)(1). As discussed previously, if the customer does not cooperate, then the gas utility should rely on its tariff to resolve the situation. These paragraphs will now be identified as paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8).

 (a)(12)—Utilities shall address meter location in their tariffs.

 National Fuel argues that the intent of the Commission to give utilities sole determination of meter set location, as described in the Proposed Rulemaking Order at page eight, is not contained in the letter or the spirit of the regulation, and recommends adding language that expresses this intent to this section.

 Discussion: We agree that the language stating that gas utilities have the sole determination for meter set location is not contained in the regulation. Although the utility still retains substantial discretion in locating meter sets, the rulemaking establishes standards and requirements that the utility must satisfy. Therefore, we shall modify this paragraph to reflect the utility's obligation to file tariffs that comply with the regulation. This paragraph will now be identified as (a)(10).

 (b)(1)—Outside meter or service regulator locations. Outside meters or service regulators shall be installed in the following locations: (1) Above ground in a protected location, adjacent to the building served. (2) In a properly designed buried vault or meter box.

 National Fuel argues that this requirement should be deleted because it is not always practical to place meters adjacent to a building, especially in rural areas where homes are located far from the road and main line. National Fuel also states that this requirement is in conflict with 52 Pa Code § 59.31(d), which requires meters for services off of production and transmission lines to be located as closely as possible to the main line.

 With respect to the outside meter or service regulator locations, IRRC notes that the wording of subsection (b) is confusing and needs to be revised and clarified. Furthermore, IRRC recognizes that a commentator raised the question that paragraph (b)(1) may conflict with 52 Pa. Code § 59.31(d), which requires meters for services off of production and transmission lines to be located as closely as possible to the point where the main line is tapped, rather than adjacent to the building being served. IRRC notes that commentators also raised their concerns as to what defines a ''protected location,'' what standards determine a ''properly designed'' buried vault or meter box under paragraph (b)(2), and the need for the provision and how the provision is reasonable.

 Discussion: We agree with NFG's comment with respect to the provision's application to rural areas. Since the outside meter or service regulator location is very much dependent on whether the location is rural or urban, we shall insert the phrase ''when feasible and practical to do so'' to provide the utility with discretion in this placement. We shall also add the phrase ''or as close as possible to the point where a production or transmission line is tapped,'' to reflect the different locations and the requirements of Section 59.31(d). This change will address the issue of locating meters for services off of production and transmission lines. We agree with IRRC's comment about the vault and shall delete the phrase ''properly designed,'' although we shall not delete the phrase in paragraph (b)(3), which is now identified as (c)(1), because a list of the design criteria is identified and does not need to be clarified. Finally we have reorganized subsection (b) to include two paragraphs (1) and (2) which specifically address meter and regulator locations. We shall also clarify that the location requirement will only apply to ''one of'' the locations. As for the phrase ''protected location,'' the definition of ''protect'' is ''to cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction.'' See Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. We believe the use of this term and the definition give enough direction to the utility in locating the meter or regulator that we do not have to clarify the phrase further by attempting to give specific examples of a ''protected location.'' For example, if the utility locates a meter or regulator out near the curb, in the open, and a vehicle accident causes damage, the location will probably be determined by the Commission to be not protected and in violation of the regulation.

 Finally, the use of the phrase ''adjacent to the building served or near the gas main'' accounts for the difference between service in urban areas where service lines are shorter and generally owned by the utility versus rural areas where service lines are longer and generally owned by the customer. In urban areas, if the meter or regulator is adjacent to the building, it is more likely to be in a protected location, away from the vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Whereas, in rural areas, the utility will place the meter and regulator close to the gas main because the distance from the main to the house can be much longer and the utility does not want to be responsible for a service line to a house that is set far from the road.

 (b)(3)—A utility shall consider proper design and location criteria for a meter box, including:

 (iii) Potential for soil accumulation.

 Moreover, IRRC maintains that the term ''proper design and location criteria for a meter box'' is vague, questions the standard for ''potential for soil accumulation'' under subparagraph (b)(3)(iii), and raises the question of the relationship between subparagraph (b)(3)(vii) and 49 CFR 192.353(c).

 Discussion: We disagree with IRRC that this phrase is vague given that the provision addressing the meter box lists seven items to be considered in determining proper design and location criteria. However, we shall remove the phrase ''potential for'' before ''soil accumulation.'' We agree the phrase may be considered vague. With respect to the Federal regulation, the CFR provision is more specific than subparagraph (vii) since it identifies the specific clearance required from the heat source. We shall cite CFR Section 192.353(c) as the clearance requirement for the regulation. Finally, we have decided to separate vaults or meter boxes under an individually titled subsection (c). This subsection will address all the general requirements for vaults or meter boxes.

 (b) Outside meter or service regulator locations. Outside meters or service regulators shall be installed in the following locations:

 (5) Vaults containing gas piping may not be connected by means of a drain connection to any other underground structure.

 (6) When a meter box is located outside a paved surface, a utility shall consider the potential for fill, topsoil, or sod being placed over the vault, and when practical, choose an alternate location.

 Similarly, Columbia notes that with respect to Section 59.18(b)(5), ''[V]aults containing gas piping may not be connected by means of a drain connection to any other underground structure.'' Columbia states it is not aware of any vaults on its system that have a drain connection to any other underground structure, but it should be clarified that this requirement would apply to vaults installed after the effective date of this proposed regulation. With respect to paragraph (b)(6), IRRC questions the use of the term ''potential'' and believes the Commission should specify how an NGDC could determine the threshold for choosing an alternative location.

 Discussion: We agree that this requirement would apply to vaults installed after the effective date of this proposed regulation. We again think the use of the word ''potential'' is vague and shall, therefore, remove the phrase ''the potential for'' from the paragraph. Here, the determination for choosing an alternate location will be based on the utility's prior experience locating meter boxes in areas that may experience fill, topsoil, or sod being placed over the vault. For example, if a new residential development has a meter box located near the front entrance, fill, topsoil or sod could be placed over the vault, and the utility should consider choosing an alternate location. However, to provide the utility with additional discretion in this area, we shall have the phrase read ''when feasible and practical to do so.'' These paragraphs have been changed to (c)(3) and (c)(4).

 (b)(7)—A utility shall refer to the guide material under 49 C.F.R. § 192.355 (relating to customer meters and regulators: protection from damage.

 National Fuel recommends that this requirement be deleted because it refers to 49 CFR 192.355, and guide material contained therein. However, National Fuel states that no such guide material exists and presumes that the rule refers to the Guide for Gas Transmission And Distribution Piping Systems (GPTC). National Fuel argues that this guide is not meant to be adopted as a regulation, and that the GPTC actually cautions against it. National Fuel believes that most of the proposed regulation actually mirrors the GPTC.

 Furthermore, IRRC sees a discrepancy in subparagraph (b)(7) because the provision refers to guide material but does not see the reference to guide material in the Federal regulation. According to IRRC, the provision should either be clarified or deleted.

 Discussion: We agree with the NFG's and IRRC's comment and shall make the deletion.

 (c)(1)—Inside meter locations shall be considered only when: (i) an acceptable outside location is not available due to restrictions in Federally-approved historic districts or in high risk vandalism districts.

 National Fuel argues that this subsection should be deleted and that the provision should allow meters to be located inside when deemed necessary in the sole judgment of the utility. National Fuel states that this exception will allow anyone living in a Federal historical district to have an indoor meter to the detriment of safety and the utility's need for reasonable access to its facilities. National Fuel submits that the proposed requirement allowing for meters to be located inside due to restrictions in Federally approved historic districts is a significant deviation from, and a more stringent requirement, than the Federal regulations. National Fuel argues that the Commission should not value aesthetics over safety and efficient utility operations, and shift authority from the Commission and the utility to the customer/property owner.

 According to NFG, the Commission should trust in the utility's ability to provide gas service to customers in historical districts in a safe, effective manner while taking into account, to the extent practical, local concerns regarding the placement of gas meters and regulators, and if need be, contact the Commission for review and guidance.

 Equitable argues that the proposed regulation differs significantly from the GPTC's general rule that inside meter locations should be considered under the following conditions where (1) an acceptable outside location is not available or practical and/or (2) protection from ambient temperatures is necessary to avoid meter freeze ups. Equitable argues that inside meter locations should not be solely based on subjective definitions of ''historic'' or ''high vandalism.'' Equitable believes that the utility should determine the location for meter sets because it is in the best position to evaluate the safest location.

 PGW also argues that the utility should have sole discretion to determine meter set location. PGW believes that this section should provide that while the utility may take Federal restrictions into consideration when considering meter locations, the utility should have the sole discretion to determine the most appropriate location for a meter set, particularly given safety considerations. In addition, PGW contends that since a utility is in the best position to assess the future likelihood of vandalism to a meter, the utility should be the final arbiter of whether a meter is in a high vandalism area. Based on these arguments, PGW offered suggested revisions to the language of this subparagraph.

 Peoples states that in some instances it is not feasible or practicable to place a meter inside and still meet the Federal regulations and guidelines. Peoples recommends that another exception be inserted to provide for inside placement when outside placement is not safe, practicable, or feasible. Peoples believes that those instances will be few and far between. However, the utility must be provided with the ability to use its discretion and operational knowledge in placing or relocating meters.

 EAP states that utilities are exempt from local zoning restrictions because the Commission has been granted exclusive jurisdiction to establish standards for the maintenance of utility facilities. Thus, EAP argues that its members are not subject to historic district regulations in the placement of facilities. According to EAP, Pennsylvania case law clearly recognizes that utilities are exempt from local zoning and other local restrictions, with certain limited exceptions. EAP suggests that the Commission recognize this exclusive jurisdiction and retain flexibility for meter set placement through use of tariff provisions to govern meter placement. After explaining how historic districts and places are established under federal and state law, EAP contends that there are no federal historic district requirements that would supercede the Commission's authority over standards for locating utility facilities in ''Federally approved Historic Districts.''

 EAP explains further how local subdivisions create historic districts by ordinance and that once such certification is received and the ordinance goes into effect, the local subdivision may appoint a Board of Historic Architectural Review that issues certificates that address the appropriateness of work completed on the buildings located within the district.

 EAP submits that jurisdictional utilities do not have to seek zoning approval or seek the issuance of building permits for the installation of their facilities because of the well recognized principle that the PUC has been granted exclusive jurisdiction to establish standards for the installation and maintenance of utility facilities. As a result, EAP does not believe that its members are subject to historic district regulations in the placement of facilities but, rather, must adhere to PUC regulations and act in accordance with the rules specified in Commission-approved tariffs.

 In the alternative, if the Commission wants a recognized exception for historic districts, EAP recommends that ''historic district'' be defined as historic districts certified by the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission under the Historic District Act. EAP suggests that the meters should be placed inside, and associated risers and regulators, where feasible, should be located outside of the building. EAP believes that this should strike an appropriate balance between safety and architectural integrity concerns by helping to ensure, in the event a steel service line is hit or disrupted, that gas flows would likely occur outside of a building, while helping preserve the architectural integrity of historic areas since outside risers and regulators are relatively small and unobtrusive. If the Commission seeks to address the placement of gas meters in historic districts in its regulations, EAP has suggested language to modify the wording of the proposed regulations.

 Columbia notes that this standard may not always be feasible for commercial and industrial meter sets due to the cost and complexity, and this is especially true in the case of larger customers, given the nature of their operations. Columbia requests that the Commission consider adding an exemption for commercial and industrial meter sets.

 The PHMC's Bureau for Historic Preservation serves as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). According to PHMC, it is the responsibility of the SHPO to administer the Commonwealth's historic preservation programs under the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Pennsylvania History Code. Apparently, the PHMC has been contacted by municipal representatives from various parts of the Commonwealth with concerns about the adverse visual effects of new gas meters placed within historic districts and in front of historic properties. PHMC submits that many of these municipalities have long-standing local preservation programs, often supported by ordinances, to ensure that the historic characteristics of their communities are maintained. In contrast to the statements made in the Proposed Rulemaking Order (page 7), PHMC is unable to identify any locally adopted historic property regulations that specifically stipulate the location of gas meters. PHMC maintains that a more likely scenario is that when utilities are attempting to install or relocate meters on the exterior of properties within locally designated historic districts, such work may be subject to review by local boards or commissions if the meter location is visible from a public way.

 As indicated previously, PHMC recommends that the definition be rephrased to use standardized terms that relate directly to existing Federal, State, and local statutes, regulations, and guidelines. PHMNC recommends that Section 59.18(c)(1)(i) be revised to read as follows:

An acceptable outside location is not available because the property is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, located within a historic district that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or has been designated as historic under the Pennsylvania Historic District Act, Municipalities Planning Code, or municipal home rule charter.

 In addition, to accommodate the various interests identified by the PUC, the utilities, the municipalities, and the PHMC, PHMC recommends that the rulemaking order include a requirement for utilities to develop design guidelines that address common issues related to meter placement and incorporate these guidelines into their tariff. PHMC explains that the proposed design guidelines should be general in nature and be developed collaboratively with the involvement of municipalities with active preservation programs, the utilities, and the PUC. Finally, due to the number of municipalities in Pennsylvania that would be affected by this rulemaking, PHMC requests that the PUC conduct additional public meetings in communities with ordinances regulating historic properties.

 With respect to paragraph (c)(1), IRRC notes, based on PHMC's comments, that the premise of the provision is inaccurate because there are no municipal requirements in Pennsylvania relating to historic properties and the location of gas meters. Furthermore, IRRC notes EAP's comment that Pennsylvania law generally exempts utilities from local zoning restrictions. IRRC also raises PHMC's comment that because the term ''Federally approved'' does not appear in either the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470(a)—470(mm) or the Pennsylvania History Code (37 Pa. Code §§ 101—906), the provision is unclear and allows for a wide range of interpretation. IRRC then asserts that the reference to ''restrictions'' regarding a home listed on the National Register is unclear. IRRC states that the Commission should also explain whether local requirements, including zoning restrictions do, in fact, exist for utilities and the location of gas meters in historic properties and further clarify how it intends for historic preservation considerations—including those adopted by local governments—to be taken into account when considering the location of gas meter sets. Moreover, IRRC states that the Commission should clarify the provision ''high-risk vandalism districts.''

 Discussion: Generally, we agree that historic preservation consideration should be taken into account when considering where and how to install gas metering and regulating equipment. We also agree with EAPs recommendations on placing the meter inside and regulators outside, when feasible, and shall adopt the amendment with respect to the ''historic district'' definition recommended by PHMC. We further believe the definition should include individually designated historic properties. According to PHMC, locally designated historic districts may also be listed in, or be eligible for, the National Register, either in whole or in part. We shall accept PHMC's revision to paragraph (i), with slight modification. We shall retain the phrase ''due to restrictions'' because if there are no restrictions then the historic district location is not relevant to locating the meter set outside. We shall remove the word ''acceptable'' as an unnecessary adjective since we are retaining the phrase ''due to restrictions.'' We shall also accept PGW's modification with respect to addressing meter vandalism. Finally, we shall provide additional regulatory authority for inside meter locations with the addition of subparagraph (d)(1)(IV) that reads ''A UTILITY DETERMINES THAT AN OUTSIDE METER LOCATION IS NEITHER FEASIBLE NOR PRACTICAL.''

 Although we agree with EAP's general premise that utilities are not subject to local ordinances in the installation of their facilities, and that the PUC has exclusive jurisdiction in this area, we further clarify that our jurisdiction over service and facilities is not confined to the distribution of energy but can include any and all acts related to that function. West Penn Power v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 578 A.2d 75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). Therefore, we might very well find that meters located outside in an historic district are not in the public interest for a number of reasons. These subparagraphs are changed to (d)(1)(i)—(iv). Under (d)(1)(i), we have further divided the subparagraph into clauses (A), (B), and (C). Finally, we have further defined or qualified the phrase ''high risk of meter vandalism'' by designating that it is based on the ''utility's prior experience.''

 (c)(2)—Regulators must be located outside when a meter is located inside.

 PGW asserts that when a meter must be placed inside it is usually advisable for the regulator to be inside too for the same reasons. PGW suggests that ''where feasible'' should be added to the beginning of this paragraph.

 Peoples states that due to design limitations or economic constraints the meter and regulator must sometimes be placed inside the premises. Peoples recommends that this paragraph state that when regulators must be inside or are already inside then the regulator pipe must be vented outside of the premise.

 Discussion: We believe that for safety reasons the provision would not be changed and that also for safety reasons where the service line is steel, the regulator should be outside. However, with the addition of the general rule under (a)(1) regulators shall be located outside and, therefore, paragraphs (2), (4), and (6) that refer to service regulators are no longer necessary. Furthermore, we have changed the title of this subsection to only include meter locations. Given this change we shall also remove the reference to service regulators in the paragraph now identified as number (3).

 (c)(3)—Installed inside meters must be attached to an operable outside shut off valve.

 National Fuel submits that the proposed regulations do not include a ''grandfather clause'' or other similar provision that clearly indicates that these rule changes are not intended to require immediate changes to existing facilities that may not be compliant with the proposed rule. National Fuel argues that this paragraph should only apply to new inside meters installed after the effective date of the regulation.

 Columbia's practice has been that if a meter is to be located inside a building where elevated pressure exists, then a regulator and a meter valve will be placed outside of the building. However, there are inside meters on Columbia's system that do not comply with the new requirement proposed and Columbia believes it should be clarified that this requirement would apply to meter sets installed after the effective date of this proposed regulation.

 Discussion: We agree that it should be made clear whether this requirement would apply to meter sets installed after the effective date of this proposed regulation. This disposition is addressed in subsection (g) titled Application of Regulation, that requires the replacement of existing facilities within 10 years from the effective date of the regulation under paragraph (g)(3). Under paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2), we address the application of the regulation for new installations and replacing existing facilities, respectively. The paragraph is changed to (d)(2).

 (c)(4)—Regulators, connected to steel service lines must be relocated to the outside by December 31, 2020.

 National Fuel maintains that the deadline should be deleted because facility relocation will be adequately accomplished by the utility's Distribution Integrity Management Plan (DIMP). Moreover, National Fuel thinks that modifying the proposed rule to allow flexibility in locating regulators on existing steel services would be consistent with the Federal regulations which do not impose a deadline.

 Equitable contends that this requirement will impose a huge capital expenditure on the utility that is not supported by the safety risk of inside meters. Equitable argues that the Commission's reason for this requirement, that there have been 65 reportable incidents in Pennsylvania over the past 40 years involving inside meter sets, has not been shown to be caused by the inside location of the meter. With respect to the Commission's rationale that several utilities do not perform leak surveys up to the meter set when the set is inside, Equitable states that it does perform surveys up to the meter, and that this is not an adequate basis to rely upon to support this regulation. Equitable believes that there is insufficient evidence of a safety threat from inside regulators to establish a relocation completion deadline by regulation.

 PGW states that it replaces steel service lines, relocates meters, and installs EFVs where needed as part of its main replacement program and in emergency situations. PGW states that it does this efficiently, consistent with its obligation to provide gas to customers at reasonable rates. PGW states that it would incur an enormous cost in fulfilling this requirement that would result in increased rates. PGW also predicts that it would have to refocus its risk-based safety efforts to adhere to this requirement. PGW submits that this section should only apply to high pressure service, as defined in 52 Pa. Code § 59.1. In addition, PGW states that this work should be performed as part of a utility's normal main replacement program, and that costs should be recoverable under Act 11. Finally, PGW estimated the potential cost related to compliance with this section at between $11 million and $74.7 million.

 PECO argues that utilities should be able to relocate meters consistent with their DIMP plans, which would allow the utility to prioritize the risks caused by indoor meter sets based on their particular distribution systems, and relocate in the most cost effective and efficient manner. This approach ensures that resources will not arbitrarily be diverted away from improving the highest system risk areas, to improving lesser risk areas, such as relocating indoor meter sets that do not pose immediate risks. PECO also notes the huge expense that would be associated with fulfilling this requirement and explains that as part of its Accelerated Gas Infrastructure Modernization Plan (AGIMP), it will relocate 85% of these meters within ten years.

 EAP states that there is no Federal counterpart to this subsection. EAP recommends that this section be deleted. In the alternative, if the Commission keeps this mandate, EAP suggests that the timeline should be flexible and take into account long term infrastructure replacement plans, pipeline replacement programs, and DIMP plans. EAP also argues that if the Commission keeps this requirement it needs to clarify whether the installation of excess flow valves or slam-shut regulators are viable options in lieu of regulator relocations.

 IRRC references commentators concerns with the December 31, 2020 deadline for relocation of regulators connected to steel service lines. The commentators raised concerns about how this schedule will affect their planning, which allegedly already takes into consideration prioritization of system risk and operational concerns.

 Discussion: We believe that ultimately relocating regulators on existing steel services is in the public interest. We do acknowledge that this would be costly and time consuming and would be more efficient to be a part of a main replacement program or other modernization plan. However, we believe that a deadline should be set to motivate utilities. Paragraph (g)(3) will provide for a 10 year completion period. Finally, this paragraph has been deleted due to the addition of the general rule under (a)(1). Since the general rule provides that meters and regulators shall be located outside, it is unnecessary to specifically identify regulators connected to steel service lines for relocation.

 (c)(5)—Meters and service regulators may not be located in engine, boiler, heater, or electrical equipment rooms, living quarters, closets, restrooms, bathrooms, or similar confined locations.

 National Fuel recommends that this subsection should be consistent with 49 CFR § 192.353. Section 192.353 requires meters and regulators to be situated ''not less than 3 feet from any source of ignition or any source of heat which might damage the meter.'' National Fuel submits that the proposed rule would establish restrictions based on the function of the space, regardless of distance from an ignition source. National Fuel describes the proposed regulation as a deviation from, and expansion of, the federal requirements, and that the restrictions will lead to confusion and result in many existing meters being out of compliance.

 PGW argues that the utility should determine the most appropriate location for inside meters, especially since federal regulations provide guidance for this situation. PGW states that given Philadelphia's housing structures, it would be impossible to comply with this regulation. PGW argues that the federal regulations fulfill the purpose of this section, and additional regulation in this area is unnecessary.

 Columbia also submits that the Commission's regulations go beyond the federal requirement by enumerating the specific prohibited locations. Moreover, this regulation would render a number of Columbia's current inside meters of a certain vintage out of compliance when such locations are currently acceptable under the federal standards.

 With respect to paragraph (c)(5), IRRC noted commentator's statements that it is possible that an NGDC could locate a meter in a basement where a heater is located a sufficient distance—according to federal standards—from the meter to not present any safety danger. In addition, IRRC questions how paragraph (c)(5) is to be considered in relation to 49 CFR 192.353(c), as quoted in the Preamble.

 Discussion: We agree with these comments for the reasons stated therein. We shall adopt the language in the federal regulation which provides specific standards for location of inside meters; standards that already apply because of the Commission's adoption of the Federal regulation under Section 59.33(b). This paragraph is now identified as paragraph (d)(3).

 (c)(7)—When a meter or service regulator is located inside a building, a utility shall comply with 49 CFR § 192.365 (relating to service lines: location of valves). A utility shall install a readily accessible shut-off valve outside the building.

 National Fuel argues that the section (c)(7) should be deleted. National Fuel states that this section is redundant because utilities are already required to comply with 49 CFR § 192.365, which was already adopted as a Commission regulation pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 59.33. Furthermore, National Fuel explains that the proposed regulation already addresses installation of an outside shut off valve in paragraph (c)(3).

 Columbia's system may not comply with these proposed requirements, and Columbia submits that it should be clarified that these requirements would apply to meter sets installed after the effective date of this proposed regulation. Also, as a part of its infrastructure replacement initiative, Columbia is confirming that all appropriate shut off valves, as enumerated in 49 CFR § 192.365, are installed.

 EAP argues that the federal standard at 49 CFR § 192.353(c) appropriately addresses meter placement concerns. Thus, EAP recommends that the Commission delete this section.

 Discussion: We find merit with these arguments and shall delete the paragraph as proposed. The section is redundant with its Federal counterpart, and the outside shut off valve was addressed in paragraph (c)(3) and is now addressed in paragraph (d)(2). We also find merit with the comments of IRRC stating that we addressed the need for excess flow valves in the preamble but did not provide for them in the annex. We shall correct this oversight with new language in this paragraph. An excess flow valve is a device that reduces gas flow in the event that a pipe fails beyond the valve and is now referenced in new paragraph (d)(4).

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 14-1902. Filed for public inspection September 12, 2014, 9:00 a.m.]

_______

⁹  Act 11 of 2012 was signed into law on February 14, 2012. The United States Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (''PHMSA'') published the final rule establishing integrity management requirements for gas distribution pipeline systems on December 4, 2009. See 74 FR 63906. The effective date of the rule was February 12, 2010. Distribution system operators were given until August 2, 2011 to write and implement DIMP plans. See 49 C.F.R. § 192.1005.

¹⁰  EAP's members include Columbia Gas of PA, Equitable Gas Company, National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, PECO Energy Company, Peoples Natural Gas Company, Peoples TWP LLC, Philadelphia Gas Works, Pike County Light & Power Company, UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc., UGI Penn Natural Gas, Inc., UGI Utilities Inc., and Valley Energy Company.

---

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

---