[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19211-19220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10587]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 161, 250 and 284

[Docket No. RM96-1-000]


Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines

April 24, 1996.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Office of 
Management and Budget Emergency Processing of Submission of Collection 
of Information.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is issuing a notice 
of proposed rulemaking to revise the Commission's regulations to 
require interstate natural gas pipelines to follow standardized 
procedures for critical business practices--nominations; allocations, 
balancing, and measurement; invoicing; and capacity release--and 
standardized mechanisms for electronic communication between the 
pipelines and those with whom they do business. The proposed 
regulations incorporate by reference the proposed standards submitted 
by the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) in response to the 
Commission's October 25, 1995 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANOPR). 60 FR 55504 (Nov. 1, 1995).
    GISB and others in the natural gas industry have requested 
expedited processing of this proposed rule. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 
CFR 1320.13, the Commission is providing notice of its request to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency processing of this 
proposed collection of information by May 24, 1996.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule are due May 24, 1996. Comments 
should be filed with the Office of the Secretary and should refer to 
Docket No. RM96-1-000.
    Because the Commission has requested OMB to process the proposed 
collection of information on an emergency basis, comments on the 
proposed collection of information should be filed with OMB, attention 
Desk Officer FERC, as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington 
DC, 20426
Office of Management and Budget, Room 3019 NEOB, Washington, D.C. 
20503, or via the Internet at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Goldenberg, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426,(202) 208-2294
Marvin Rosenberg, Office of Economic Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. (202) 208-1283

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of 
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all 
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of 
this document during normal business hours in Room 2A, 888 First 
Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20426.
    The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic 
bulletin

[[Page 19212]]

board service, provides access to the texts of formal documents issued 
by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to the user and may 
be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by dialing 202-208-
1397 or 1-800-856-3920. To access CIPS, set your communications 
software to use 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, 1200, or 
300 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8 data bits, and 1 stop bit. The full 
text of this document will be available on CIPS in ASCII and 
WordPerfect 5.1 format. The complete text on diskette in WordPerfect 
format may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, La 
Dorn Systems Corporation, also located in Room 2A, 888 First Street, 
N.E., Washington D.C. 20426.
    The Commission's bulletin board system also can be accessed through 
the FedWorld system directly by modem or through the Internet. To 
access the FedWorld system by modem:
     Dial (703) 321-3339 and logon to the FedWorld system.
     After logging on, type: /go FERC
    To access the FedWorld system, through the Internet:
     Telnet to: fedworld.gov
     Select the option: [1] FedWorld
     Logon to the FedWorld system
     Type: /go FERC

Or:

     Point your Web Browser to: http://www.fedworld.gov
     Scroll down the page to select FedWorld Telnet Site
     Select the option: [1] FedWorld
     Logon to the FedWorld system
     Type: /go FERC

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

April 24, 1996.

 I. Introduction

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing 
to amend its open access regulations to standardize business practices 
and procedures governing transactions between interstate natural gas 
pipelines, their customers, and others doing business on the pipelines. 
The proposed standards govern four important business practices--
nominations; allocations, balancing, and measurement; invoicing; and 
capacity release--as well as the mechanisms for electronic 
communication between the pipelines and those doing business on the 
pipelines. The proposed regulations incorporate by reference the 
standards submitted by the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) in 
response to the Commission's October 25, 1995 Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR).\1\ The Commission proposes to require 
pipelines to comply with the regulations by January 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines, 60 FR 55504 (Nov. 1, 1995), 73 FERC para. 61,104 (Oct. 
25, 1995). Public Reporting Burden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Reporting Burden

    The proposed rule would require natural gas pipelines to adopt both 
standards for business practices and procedures as well as mechanisms 
for electronic communication between pipelines and those doing business 
with the pipelines. The standards would regularize the means by which 
the gas industry conducts business across the interstate pipeline grid. 
The standards were developed by GISB, an industry consensus standards 
organization, to improve the efficiency of the gas market. The 
Commission is proposing to adopt these standards by reference.
    The proposed rule would affect one existing Commission data 
collection, FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-formal), 
(OMB Control No. 1902-0154) (FERC-545), and establish a new data 
collection/requirement, FERC-549C, Standards for Business Practices of 
Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, (OMB Control No. to be assigned) 
(FERC-549C).
    Under the existing data collection/requirements of FERC-545, there 
would be a one-time estimated annual reporting burden of 6,400 hours 
(80 hours per company) with the adoption of the standards/business 
practices as proposed herein. The initial implementation of the 
proposed standards/business practices would require approximately 80 
interstate natural gas pipelines to make tariff filings to conform 
their tariffs with the standards/business practices. (See FERC-545 
burden detail in estimated burden table below.)
    Under the new data collection/requirements of FERC-549C there would 
be a one-time start-up annual burden/cost of 1,227,840 hours (15,348 
per company). It is expected that any recurring annual burden/cost 
would not be substantial given the operating efficiencies which would 
result from the proposed standards/business practices, particularly the 
improved methods of electronic communication.
    The proposed standards/data requirements contained in this Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking have been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). For copies of the OMB submission, 
contact Michael Miller at 202-208-1415. Comments are solicited on the 
Commission's need to require the industry to adopt the standards/
business practices on an industry-wide basis; whether the proposed 
requirements will have practical utility; the accuracy of the provided 
burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the proposed data requirements; and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondents' burden including the use of automated 
techniques. Persons wishing to comment on the proposed information 
requirements should direct their comments to the Desk Officer FERC, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 3019 NEOB, Washington, D.C. 
20503, phone 202-395-3087 or via the Internet at [email protected].
    GISB and others in the natural gas industry have requested 
expedited processing of this proposed rule, and the Commission has 
requested the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide for 
emergency processing of this proposed collection of information by May 
24, 1996. Comments on the collection of information, therefore, should 
be filed with the Office of Management and Budget as soon as possible 
to provide OMB sufficient time for its review. A copy of any comments 
filed with the Office of Management and Budget also should be sent to 
the following address at the Commission: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Information Services Division, Room 41-17, Washington, DC 
20426, Attention: Michael Miller.

                                             Estimated Annual Burden                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total                     Total   
            Affected data collection/requirement               Number of    number of    Hours per      annual  
                                                              respondents   responses     response      hours   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-549C (New Data Requirement):                                                                               
    Reporting/Data Requirement Burden.......................           80           80       15,348    1,227,840

[[Page 19213]]

                                                                                                                
FERC-545 (1902-0154):                                                                                           
    Reporting/Data Requirement Burden.......................           80           80           80        6,400
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
        Total Annual Hours (All Data Collections/                                                               
         Requirements)......................................           80           80       15,428    1,234,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Data Collection/Requirement Costs: The Commission seeks comments on 
the costs to comply with these proposed standards/business practices. 
It has projected that the average annualized cost per respondent for 
the first year would be as follows:

Annualized Capital/Start-up Costs                                       
  FERC-549C..................................................   $750,118
  FERC-545...................................................      3,910
                                                              ----------
    Total....................................................    754,028
                                                                        

    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed, in general, the 
proposed standards/business practices and determined that they are 
necessary to establish a more efficient and integrated pipeline grid. 
Requiring such standards on an industry-wide basis would reduce the 
variations in pipeline business practices and, thus, enable buyers to 
more easily and efficiently buy and transport gas from all potential 
sources of supply. The proposed standards/business practices conform to 
the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, 
communication, and management within the natural gas industry. The 
Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that 
there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates 
associated with the information requirements proposed in this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR).

III. Background

    The process of standardizing business practices in the natural gas 
industry began with a Commission initiative to convene a technical 
conference to standardize electronic communication of capacity release 
transactions.\2\ To develop the required standards, the participants at 
the conference agreed to form working groups composed of 
representatives from all segments of the industry. In addition to the 
capacity release standards, the conference participants decided that 
standardization of other business transactions, such as nominations and 
flowing gas, was important and formed an additional Working Group to 
begin to develop standards for these transactions. A consensus of the 
Working Group recommended that the industry be permitted to develop and 
implement such standards voluntarily. Thus, while the Commission 
recognized the importance of this effort in helping to facilitate gas 
movement across the pipeline grid, the Commission was not actively 
involved in the process.\3\ The Commission pledged to reevaluate its 
role in the development and implementation of such standards based on 
the progress made by the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Standards For Electronic Bulletin Boards Required Under Part 
284 of the Commission's Regulations, Order No. 563, 59 FR 516 (Jan. 
5, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles para. 30,988 (Dec. 23, 
1993), order on reh'g, Order No. 563-A, 59 FR 23624 (May 6, 1994), 
III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles para. 30,994 (May 2, 1994), reh'g 
denied, Order No. 563-B, 68 FERC para. 61,002 (1994).
    \3\ Order No. 563-A, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles, at 
31,050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During this same time frame, the industry sought to formalize the 
Working Group process by forming a private standards organization to 
continue and expand the Working Groups' efforts to develop electronic 
standards. In 1995, the industry formed GISB as a consensus standards 
organization open to all members of the gas industry.\4\ GISB's 
procedures require balanced voting representation from all five 
segments of the industry--pipelines, local distribution companies 
(LDCs), producers, end-users, and services (including marketers and 
third-party computer service providers). At the Executive Committee 
level, a consensus of the five segments must approve each standard.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ According to a March 27, 1996 letter from counsel for GISB, 
to the Secretary of the Commission (filed in this docket), GISB has 
not yet received approval by the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) as an accredited standards organization due to a 
misunderstanding between GISB and ANSI. GISB is now pursuing ANSI 
accreditation, and, according to GISB, ANSI has agreed to expedite 
its review of GISB's application. Accreditation involves, among 
other items, ANSI's review of the process and procedures of the 
standards-developers to ensure that the standards-development 
process is open to all materially affected parties and that 
standards are developed by a balanced consensus of the industry, 
without domination by any single interest or interest category.
    \5\ To pass the Executive Committee, a standard must be approved 
by 17 out of the 25 members, with at least two affirmative votes 
from each segment. These standards must then be approved by a vote 
of 67% of GISB's general membership to become approved standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the industry, under the auspices of the Interstate 
Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and the Associated Gas 
Distributors (AGD), began a Grid Integration Project to consider 
standards for coordinating pipeline business practices to simplify the 
process of shipping gas across multiple pipelines. After GISB expanded 
its scope from electronic standards to encompass business practice 
standards, the Grid Integration Project was folded into GISB.
    On September 21, 1995, the Commission held a public conference in 
Docket No. RM93-4-000 to evaluate the progress being made towards 
standardization. Almost all the commenters at the conference 
acknowledged that the industry had not achieved the anticipated 
progress. Many participants maintained that merely standardizing 
electronic communication did not go far enough to provide for efficient 
integration of the pipeline grid. Even though GISB had promulgated 
standards for electronic communication of nomination and confirmation 
information, the participants contended these standards were not being 
widely used because they failed to standardize the pipelines' disparate 
underlying business practices. For example, pipelines often require 
vastly different information to submit a valid nomination, so that, 
even if nominations are submitted electronically, efficiency would be 
impaired because the shippers' schedulers would have to know the 
idiosyncratic nomination and confirmation information for each 
pipeline.
    On October 25, 1995, the Commission issued an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking requesting the submission of detailed proposals 
from the industry, by March 15, 1996, that would enable the Commission 
to adopt regulations for business practices and procedures involving 
transactions between pipelines and their customers. In the ANOPR, the 
Commission concluded that without common business practices

[[Page 19214]]

and a common language for communication, the speed and efficiency with 
which shippers can transact business across multiple pipelines is now, 
and will continue to be, severely compromised.
    The Commission sought detailed proposals in four areas: (1) The 
standard set of information (data elements) that pipelines must use in 
conducting ten high priority business transactions identified by the 
industry--nominations, confirmations, allocated gas flows, customer and 
contract imbalances, gas flow at metered points, transportation 
invoices, pre-determined allocation methodologies, gas payment 
remittance statements, gas sales invoices, and uploads of capacity 
release prearranged deals; (2) standards covering nomenclature and any 
business practices associated with the ten elements; (3) standard 
methods of communicating the information, including communication 
protocols for each business practice that address issues such as 
scheduling and response times of information exchanges and performance 
standards for assessing whether the system is substantially meeting 
those goals; 6 and (4) standards needed to facilitate gas flow 
across interconnecting pipelines, such as those considered by the Grid 
Integration Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission also invited the submission of alternatives 
to the current requirement that pipelines provide information 
through an Electronic Bulletin Board (EBB). See 18 CFR 284.8(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission established January 1, 1997 as the target deadline 
for compliance with the standards, and urged the segments of the 
industry to work together, as they had during the Working Group 
process, to achieve consensus on the standards. The Commission 
anticipated that GISB would become the forum for coordinating these 
industry efforts, and stated it would give great weight to consensus 
proposals emanating from the GISB process.
    On March 15, 1996, GISB filed 140 standards covering five major 
business areas--nominations and confirmations, flowing gas, invoicing, 
capacity release, and the electronic mechanism for communication 
between industry participants (the electronic delivery mechanism 
(EDM)). Over 500 individuals participated in the effort to develop 
these standards, with 45 days of meetings conducted over a period of 53 
business days. The GISB Executive Committee, through its consensus 
voting procedures, approved these standards. According to GISB, these 
standards are intended to be minimum standards that parties are 
encouraged to exceed by providing enhanced services or faster response 
times. On March 15, GISB also filed a draft set of data elements 
describing the specific information that would be used by industry 
participants to conduct the 10 high priority business transactions.
    Subsequently, on April 9, 1996, GISB's Executive Committee approved 
the final version of the data sets. GISB filed the data sets with the 
Commission on April 12, 1996, along with a revision to business 
practice standard 1.2.2 to clarify the usage codes employed in the data 
sets. GISB explains that the data sets are to be implemented using the 
current PI-GRIDTM and DUNS numbers.7 GISB reports that, as 
part of its process of trying to improve the standards, the Executive 
Committee unanimously has adopted the recommendation of its Common 
Codes Subcommittee to revise and enhance the common code structures to 
produce greater efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The PI-GRIDTM number is maintained by the Petroleum 
Information Corporation pursuant to a contract with major gas 
industry trade associations to provide and maintain a common code 
database. The DUNS number refers to the company codes published by 
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation. See Order No. 563-A, III FERC Stats. & 
Regs. Preambles, at 31,043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GISB also states that it has begun the process of mapping the data 
sets into ASC X12 language and preparing an implementation guide.8 
GISB states that its task forces have committed to completing this 
effort by May 31, 1996. GISB notes that if this effort reveals the need 
for changes to the data sets, it will so inform the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ASC X12 is a standardized format for electronic transmission 
of documents. Standards for the use of such documents are 
promulgated by the ANSI Accredited Standards Committee (ASC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GISB says it mailed out ballots to its membership on April 12, 
1996, for ratification of the business practice standards and data 
sets. An affirmative vote by 67% of those returning ballots is needed 
for ratification, and members have 30 days to respond.
    On March 15, 1996 (or shortly thereafter), 40 parties filed 
comments on the GISB standards.9 On the whole, the commenters 
found that GISB's standards would significantly improve the efficiency 
of the gas market, but they raised questions with respect to specific 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The appendix lists those filing comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

A. Proposed Incorporation of the GISB Standards by Reference

    The Commission commends the industry and GISB for the work they 
have put into this process and the significant progress they have made 
towards standardization. GISB's standards go beyond merely 
standardizing the data sets for electronic communication of the ten 
high priority data elements; the standards regularize the means by 
which the entire industry will conduct business across the interstate 
pipeline grid.
    The following is just a small sample of what would be accomplished 
by the adoption of these standards. All pipelines would permit pooling 
on their systems, which will simplify nominations by permitting 
producers and shippers to aggregate gas packages. All pipelines would 
permit at least one intra-day nomination, which will allow shippers to 
change the amount of gas they receive during a day to better fit 
changing needs. All pipelines would adopt a standard set of information 
covering the ten high priority data elements, so that shippers will be 
able to communicate using the same information for the same 
transactions no matter the pipelines with which they deal. And all 
pipelines would support a standard Internet connection for 
communications with their customers, eliminating the disparity in log-
in procedures and user interfaces faced by customers using the 
individual pipeline electronic bulletin boards.
    The GISB standards represent a formidable step towards improved 
efficiency and competitiveness in the gas industry. Accordingly, the 
Commission is proposing to require interstate pipelines to comply with 
the GISB definitions, standards, and data sets by January 1, 
1997.10 Pipelines also may need to make tariff filings to amend 
current tariffs in sufficient time to comply with the new standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Commission is not proposing to adopt the principles 
articulated by GISB, because these do not purport to impose 
obligations on pipelines. The principles, however, will be used as 
guidance as to the intent of the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To adopt the GISB standards, the Commission proposes to add section 
284.10 to its regulations. Section 284.10(b) would incorporate the GISB 
definitions, standards, and data sets by reference. GISB's previously 
approved standards for capacity release transactions also would replace 
the current requirement, in section 284.8(b)(5), that pipelines comply 
with standardized data sets and communication protocols. In addition, 
the EBB requirements of sections 284.8(b)(4) and 284.9(b)(4) would be 
moved to section 284.10(a).
    Incorporation of the GISB standards by reference is consistent with 
the public policy of having federal agencies rely upon voluntary 
private standards

[[Page 19215]]

whenever feasible.11 Even though the Commission is proposing to 
incorporate the standards by reference, the Commission retains the 
ability, if it deems necessary, to modify pipelines' obligations by 
specifying in the regulations any deletions of, or revisions or 
additions to the GISB standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 
1995, Pub L. 104-113, Sec. 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), and OMB 
Circular A-119, ``Federal Participation in the Development and Use 
of Voluntary Standards'' (Oct. 20, 1993) (an earlier version is 
available at 47 FR 49496 (Nov. 1, 1992)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its March 15, 1996 filing, GISB asserts that major efforts are 
required by all segments of the industry to meet the Commission's 
proposed January 1, 1997 compliance date. GISB, therefore, requested 
the Commission to issue its NOPR and final rule as quickly as 
procedural rules permit, with a target date of May 31, 1996, for 
issuance of the final rule.
    Since GISB did not submit the data sets until April 12, 1996, and 
final approval of the business practice standards and the data sets by 
the GISB members will not take place until mid-May 1996, the Commission 
cannot meet the suggested May 31, 1996 date and still afford a 
meaningful opportunity for comment.12 The Commission, however, 
recognizes the importance of this undertaking and is committed to 
moving this proceeding as quickly as possible. The Commission, for 
example, is issuing this NOPR at the earliest opportunity after having 
received GISB's final data sets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Although GISB fully expects membership approval of the 
standards, the Commission's 30 day comment period in this proceeding 
affords an opportunity for comment in the event that the membership 
vote results in any changes or revisions to the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GISB states that the standards were based on the Commission's 
January 1, 1997 target compliance date, with the exception of the 
Internet protocols, for which GISB proposes a compliance date of April 
1, 1997. Other commenters, however, expressed concern about the effect 
on shippers and consumers if pipeline compliance is set for January 1, 
1997, and failures occur during the midst of the winter heating season.
    The Commission considers prompt implementation of these standards 
to be a high priority for the industry and does not want to unduly 
delay the beneficial effects of implementing these standards. Affected 
parties are fully aware of the standards and can begin to plan for 
implementation now. The Commission, therefore, proposes to adhere to 
the January 1, 1997 compliance date. The Commission recognizes, 
however, the concerns expressed by some parties regarding mid-winter 
implementation. Parties objecting to this proposed date for compliance 
should provide a fully developed staggered implementation plan or other 
approach that will ensure rapid implementation of the most important 
standards. INGAA, for instance, submitted a proposed phased 
implementation plan that puts off implementation of some of the 
important nomination and other standards until June of 1997. The 
Commission believes this is too long.
    Adoption of the GISB standards does not mean that the work of 
standardization is done. As GISB and the industry recognize, 
standardization is an ongoing, continuous process and not all the 
needed standards could be developed within the timeframe established by 
the Commission in the ANOPR. The Commission, therefore, is also setting 
September 30, 1996 as a date for GISB and the industry to submit 
detailed proposals for standards in the additional areas identified by 
GISB and the commenters, such as expansion of Internet protocols to 
include all electronic information provided by the pipelines (perhaps 
to replace pipeline cost-of-service EBBs13), title transfer 
tracking, allocations and rankings of gas packages, treatment of 
compressor fuel, operational balancing agreements, routing models, 
imbalance resolution, operational flow orders, multi-tiered allocations 
and confirmations, and additional pooling standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 18 CFR 161.3(h), 250.16(c)(2)284.8(b)(4), 284.106(c)(4), 
284.223(b) (requiring pipelines to post capacity information, 
affiliate discount reports, the affiliate capacity allocation log, 
and an index of customers on EBBs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Electronic Delivery Mechanism

    GISB has not yet completed the technical process of mapping the 
data sets to the ASC X12 formats and preparing the associated 
implementation guide, but has committed to do so by May 31, 1996. The 
Commission expects that these documents will go through the GISB 
consensus process for obtaining industry input and approval. Once 
completed, the Commission proposes to incorporate these documents in 
its regulations.
    In addition, GISB's standard for providing for Internet 
communication is tentative and depends on the outcome of further 
examination of security and other issues. The Commission requests 
comment from GISB and others specifying the delivery mechanism and 
related standards and protocols that would be used on January 1, 1997, 
if the Internet approach is not adopted. Comments also should address 
whether additional standards are needed for Internet communication, 
such as the use of file transfer protocol (FTP), and the timetable for 
developing those standards.

C. Comments

    The comments on the GISB standards that were received 
contemporaneously with GISB's filing fall into essentially four 
categories: Suggestions to delete or revise standards; requests for 
clarification as to the scope of standards; requests for waivers; and 
requests for additional standards that GISB either did not adopt or did 
not consider. Given the information the Commission has at this point in 
the process, the objections raised do not appear to justify any change 
or revision to the industry's consensus proposals in this NOPR. A 
benefit of having these comments is that they may help focus the 
industry's comments on this proposed rule.
1. Requests for Revisions
    Since a consensus of all segments of the natural gas industry has 
found that the standards are necessary and achieve a reasonable balance 
between the needs of all segments and areas of the country, the 
Commission is hesitant to revise them. The industry, not the 
Commission, is in the best position to evaluate and balance the 
industry's concerns, and the Commission sees no evidence that an 
appropriate balance has not been struck. For example, some LDCs and 
shippers on the West Coast contend their efficiency would be improved 
by moving the start of the nomination process from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 
p.m. Iroquois, on the other hand, contends that 10:30 a.m. would be 
preferable for East Coast shippers. Similarly, several Midwest LDCs 
contend their pipelines' previous 12:00 noon gas day makes their 
nomination and scheduling process easier than GISB's 9:00 a.m. gas day, 
but apparently the rest of the industry prefers the 9:00 a.m. gas day. 
The GISB standards, therefore, appear to effect a reasonable compromise 
between the positions of the various industry segments. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The GISB standards do not appear to preclude the Midwest 
LDCs from reaching agreements with their pipelines to provide 
greater nomination flexibility if that is required in their region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters are concerned that GISB's deadlines do not provide 
sufficient flexibility. NGC/Conoco/Vastar/Coastal contend uniform 
nomination deadlines should not be adopted; they prefer varied 
nomination schedules, because, they argue, varied schedules would 
permit parties bumped on one pipeline to renominate on other pipelines.

[[Page 19216]]

    The GISB standards, however, do not appear to unduly restrict 
flexibility. The standards would require each pipeline to permit one 
intra-day nomination four hours prior to gas flow. The standards also 
establish a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day nomination process and 
specify that nominations submitted after the nomination deadline should 
still be processed by the pipeline. Thus, as long as pipelines have 
available capacity, shippers should be permitted to nominate gas on 
those pipelines even if the nomination deadline has passed or they have 
not previously submitted a nomination for that day. The Commission 
solicits comments as to whether this interpretation is correct or 
whether an additional standard may be needed requiring pipelines to 
permit nominations any time they have unscheduled capacity.
    Of course, during the comment period, GISB and the industry have an 
additional opportunity to review the standards that have been 
challenged and submit revisions. The Commission also will be able to 
review these matters again in light of comments on both sides of the 
issues.
    In addition, the Commission requests clarification of GISB's 
statement that all of its standards should be considered minimums and 
that parties are encouraged to exceed these standards. The Commission 
is not sure whether GISB intends that pipelines and their customers can 
mutually agree to change all of the GISB standards or whether some 
standards should be considered inviolate, because any change would have 
adverse repercussions for non-contracting parties.
2. Requests for Clarification
    The requests for clarification generally involve questions about 
how the standards are to be implemented. For instance, some shippers 
contend that GISB's standard for one intra-day nomination should apply 
to all receipt and delivery points and all services, while others 
contend that pipelines should be permitted to offer services without 
this flexibility for a lower price. CNG Transmission similarly contends 
that the requirement for pipelines to provide pooling should apply only 
to direct feed deliveries, not to supplies received from upstream 
pipelines.
    The Commission expects pipelines to make a good faith effort to 
implement these standards as broadly as possible to provide their 
customers with the services they need to operate in an integrated gas 
market. Providing more specific answers to implementation questions may 
not be possible on a generic basis, since operational conditions and 
customers' requirements may differ depending on the pipelines. The 
Commission expects pipelines to consult, and reach agreement, with 
their shippers on the mechanics of implementation. This process should 
resolve most of these disputes. But, if problems still exist, the 
Commission can address them when pipelines file revised tariffs to 
incorporate the standards or through the complaint process.
3. Requests for Waivers
    Several pipelines have requested waivers of certain standards that 
they find impractical on their systems. In particular, they argue that 
they may not be able to provide, with their current equipment, certain 
measurement data as quickly as the standards specify. They maintain 
that installing updated equipment would be unnecessarily expensive.
    As a general matter, the Commission is hesitant to grant exceptions 
to industry-wide standards, because such exceptions run counter to the 
reason for establishing standards in the first place: that the industry 
requires uniform procedures to achieve the greatest efficiency in 
transporting gas across an integrated pipeline grid. The Commission, 
however, will consider requests for waivers based on the facts of the 
individual situation. Agreement to a waiver by a pipeline's customers 
would be an important factor in considering any waiver request.
4. Requests for Additional Standards
    GISB recognizes that additional work is needed to consider 
standards in the additional areas listed earlier, 15 but has not 
yet established deadlines for consideration of such standards. A number 
of the commenters argue that standards in these areas are extremely 
important, but they do not suggest that development of standards in 
these areas is a prerequisite to implementation of the current GISB 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See text accompanying note 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes that, in the time provided, the industry 
could not reach agreement on all the issues necessary to enhance the 
efficiency of the gas marketplace. Although adoption of standards in 
these additional areas need not take place coincident with the 
standards GISB has filed, prompt attention to these issues appears 
important to the continued development of an efficient gas marketplace. 
For a fully competitive gas market to exist, participants need to be 
able to buy and sell gas freely. The ability do so, however, can be 
restricted if these transactions are not accurately reflected in the 
scheduling, confirmation, and accounting procedures used by the 
industry. Similarly, shippers should be able to contract for gas at a 
lower price if they are willing to assume a greater risk of 
curtailment. Thus, shippers and producers must be able to assign 
different priorities to gas packages to reflect those choices.
    The industry is better able than the Commission to craft solutions 
that will most effectively resolve the issues at the lowest overall 
cost. Now that the press of developing the bulk of the standards has 
receded, the Commission expects the industry to focus its attention on 
these additional areas. The Commission recognizes that some of these 
issues are complex and have vexed the industry for some time. But that 
is all the more reason for all segments of the industry and GISB to 
continue to work cooperatively and creatively to develop solutions that 
fairly balance the concerns of all the participants. For example, when 
faced with the task of creating a database for common transaction 
points, the industry decided upon a nationwide solution by using the 
Petroleum Information Corporation to create and administer the common 
code data base. Similar creativity should be employed here.
    Because of the importance shippers place on resolving these issues, 
the Commission is soliciting detailed proposals for standards in these 
areas from GISB and the industry, by September 30, 1996. The Commission 
would prefer that the industry reach consensus agreement through GISB 
on proposed standards (or a consensus that a standard is not needed). 
However, if with this additional time, the industry is unable to reach 
consensus, the Commission is willing to resolve these issues. In the 
event consensus is not reached, the Commission will expect the 
September 30, 1996 reports to be sufficiently comprehensive that they 
fully describe the problems faced by the industry and explain whether a 
uniform response is needed or not, discuss the potential solutions to 
the problems that have been considered, and provide analysis of the 
benefits and disadvantages of the proposed solutions.

D. Capacity Release

    The Commission has been examining the operation of its capacity 
release mechanism in a number of proceedings.16 As part of this 
process,

[[Page 19217]]

Commission staff, in the fall of 1994, conducted informal discussions 
with all segments of the gas industry about the way in which the system 
operates, discussions which helped form the basis for changes in the 
program.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Release of Firm Capacity on Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines, Order No. 577, 60 FR 16979 (Apr. 4, 1995), III FERC 
Stats. & Regs. Preambles para. 31,017 (Mar. 29, 1995). See also 
Petition Of United Distribution Companies and Associated Gas 
Distributors For A Rulemaking To Promote Growth And Development Of 
The Secondary Market, Docket No. RM94-10-000, filed December 9, 
1993.
    \17\ See Order No. 577, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 
31,313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although GISB did not propose changes to the major policy aspects 
of the Commission regulations (such as the cap on the price for 
released capacity and the requirement for bidding on pipeline 
EBBs18), GISB did address important issues regarding the operation 
of the capacity release program. Of particular interest, GISB proposes 
a standard timeframe within which pipelines would process capacity 
release transactions and has created standardized data sets permitting 
uploads of capacity release transactions. Under GISB's timeline, 
replacement shippers would be able to nominate under a short-term 
release (less than five months) within one day of notifying the 
pipeline of the release.19 This same schedule applies whether the 
release is subject to bidding or is exempt from the bidding 
process.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 18 CFR 284.243.
    \19\ Specifically, pipelines would need to be notified by 1 p.m. 
for shippers to nominate the next day.
    \20\ Capacity release deals are exempt from bidding if they are 
for a period of 31 days or less or are at the maximum rate. 18 CFR 
284.243(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist in the Commission's consideration of the capacity release 
mechanism, the Commission is requesting comment on how adoption of 
GISB's proposals would affect concerns previously expressed about the 
capacity release program. Comments should not focus on whether the 
Commission should revise its basic capacity release policies, such as 
the price cap or bidding, but should center on the effect of adopting 
the GISB standards on previously identified problems with the capacity 
release system. Comments should address how effectively GISB's 
proposals deal with concerns about the speed and other mechanics of the 
pipeline bidding process, the difficulty in coordinating releases 
across multiple pipelines, and the lack of comparability between the 
capacity release procedures and the process of obtaining pipeline 
interruptible or short-term firm capacity.
    Few comments address GISB's capacity release provisions. 
TransCapacity requests clarification of standard 5.3.11 which states 
that ``replacement shipper initiates confirmation of prearranged deals 
electronically.'' TransCapacity contends that the standard, as worded, 
does not require pipelines to accept replacement shipper confirmations 
through file uploads; it would permit pipelines to specify EBB 
confirmations or some other electronic means.
    TransCapacity appears to raise a valid concern. The reason for 
developing standardized data sets for uploads of pre-arranged deals was 
to increase the efficiency of the capacity release mechanism by 
permitting parties to avoid the use of pipeline EBBs to transmit 
release transactions to the pipelines. On some pipelines, apparently, 
submission of the pre-arranged deal is not sufficient to conclude the 
transaction; the pipeline requires the replacement shipper to confirm 
that transaction. Comments should consider whether the efficiency 
sought to be achieved through uploads of pre-arranged deals would be 
compromised if pipelines are not required to permit uploads of 
confirmations by the replacement shipper or its agent.
    INGAA suggests that the Commission consider removing the 
requirement that bidding take place through the pipeline and, instead, 
establish a mechanism under which bidding could take place through 
third-party computer service providers. Comments should address whether 
this proposal would introduce greater efficiency in the capacity 
release system. One of the principal arguments for permitting bidding 
on third-party boards was that third-parties have an incentive to 
process transactions much faster than the pipelines, which sometimes 
had bidding and posting periods lasting several days. GISB's standards 
would require pipelines to process bids in one day, and comments should 
address whether this change reduces the need for third-party bidding. 
In addition, comments should consider the possible effect on releasers 
and replacement shippers if, instead of having the assurance that all 
biddable deals for a pipeline are posted on that pipeline's system, 
they also have to monitor postings on third-party boards.

V. Environmental Analysis

    The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment 
or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a 
significant adverse effect on the human environment.\21\ The Commission 
has categorically excluded certain actions from these requirements as 
not having a significant effect on the human environment.\22\ The 
action taken here falls within categorical exclusions in the 
Commission's regulations for rules that are clarifying, corrective, or 
procedural, for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and 
for sales, exchange, and transportation of natural gas that requires no 
construction of facilities.\23\ Therefore, an environmental assessment 
is unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & 
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 para. 30,783 (1987).
    \22\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \23\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \24\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The proposed regulations would impose requirements only on interstate 
pipelines, which are not small businesses, and, these requirements are, 
in fact, designed to reduce the difficulty of dealing with pipelines by 
all customers, including small businesses. Accordingly, pursuant to 
section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission hereby certifies that the 
regulations proposed herein will not have a significant adverse impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Information Collection Requirement

    The Commission considers the prompt implementation of these 
standards to be a high priority for the industry, and GISB and others 
in the natural gas industry have requested that the Commission process 
this proposed rule as quickly as possible. The Commission believes that 
the normal clearance procedures for review and approval by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) could delay the proposed date for 
pipelines to comply with the rule. Therefore, the Commission is 
submitting this proposed information collection/requirement for 
emergency processing under Section 5 CFR 1320.13 of OMB's regulations. 
The Commission requests OMB to approve the proposed data collection 
requirements no later than 5 p.m., May 24, 1996. Comments to OMB 
regarding the subject NOPR should be sent as soon as possible in order 
that OMB have sufficient time for its review.

    Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-formal).

[[Page 19218]]

    Action: Proposed Data Collection/Requirements.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0154.
    Docket No.: RM96-1-000.
    Respondents: Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines (Not applicable to 
small businesses).
    Frequency of Responses: One-time tariff filings (First year).

    Title: FERC-549C, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate 
Natural Gas Pipelines.
    Action: Proposed Data Collection/Requirements.
    OMB Control No.: To be assigned by OMB.
    Respondents: Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines (Not applicable to 
small businesses).
    Frequency of Responses: One-time capital/start-up new business 
procedures (First year).
    Necessity of Information: The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
solicits public comments to respond to the standards proposed to be 
established to govern four major business practices--nominations; 
allocations, balancing, and measurement; invoicing; and capacity 
release--as well as the mechanism for electronic communication between 
the pipelines and those doing business with the pipelines. The proposed 
data requirements incorporate by reference the standards submitted by 
GISB. Without the Commission's adoption of these standards to establish 
common business practices and a common language for communication 
across the pipeline grid, the speed and efficiency with which shippers 
can transact business across multiple pipelines would be severely 
compromised. Under the proposed rule, all pipelines would adopt a 
standard set of information covering the ten high priority data 
elements, so that shippers would be able to communicate using the same 
information for the same transactions regardless of the pipelines with 
which they are dealing. In addition, all pipelines would support a 
standard Internet connection for communications with their customers, 
eliminating the disparity in log-on procedures and user interfaces 
faced by customers using the individual pipeline electronic bulletin 
boards.
    The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations require OMB 
to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by 
agency rule.\25\ The information collection requirements in the 
proposed rule would be reported directly to the industry users. The 
implementation of these proposed data requirements will help the 
Commission carry out its responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act and 
coincide with the current regulatory environment which the Commission 
instituted with Order No. 636 and the restructuring of the natural gas 
industry. The Commission's Office of Pipeline Regulation uses the data 
in rate proceedings to review rate and tariff changes by natural gas 
companies for the transportation of gas and for general industry 
oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is submitting notification of this proposed rule to 
OMB for emergency processing. Interested persons may obtain information 
on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., Washington, DC 20426 
[Attention: Michael Miller, Information Services Division, (202) 208-
1415] or the Office of Management and Budget [Attention: Desk Officer 
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (202) 395-3087].

VIII. Comment Procedures

    The Commission invites interested persons to submit written 
comments on the matters proposed in this notice, including any related 
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. 
The Commission also invites commenters to address the comments already 
filed in this proceeding and discuss why they may support the standards 
filed by GISB. An original and 14 copies of comments to this notice 
must be filed with the Commission no later than May 24, 1996. Comments 
should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, and 
should refer to Docket No. RM96-1-000. Additionally, comments should be 
submitted on computer diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 format or in ASCII 
format, with the name of the filer and Docket No. RM96-1-000 on the 
outside of the diskette.
    All written comments will be placed in the Commission's public 
files and will be available for inspection in the Commission's Public 
Reference Room at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, during 
regular business hours.

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 161

    Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 250

    Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 284

    Continental shelf, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements; Incorporation by reference.

    By direction of the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend 
Parts 161, 250, and 284, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below.

PART 161--STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR INTERSTATE PIPELINES WITH 
MARKETING AFFILIATES

    1. The authority citation for Part 161 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.


Sec. 161.3   [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 161.3, paragraph (h)(2) is amended by removing the 
phrase ``Sec. 284.8(b)(4)'' and adding, in its place, the phrase 
``Sec. 284.10(a)''.

PART 250--FORMS

    1. The authority citation for Part 250 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.


Sec. 250.16   [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 250.16, paragraph (c)(2) is amended by removing the 
phrase ``Sec. 284.8(b)(4)'' and adding, in its place, the phrase 
``Sec. 284.10(a)''. ,

PART 284--CERTAIN SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS UNDER THE 
NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES

    1. The authority citation for Part 284 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C 7101-7532; 43 
U.S.C 1331-1356.

    2. In Sec. 284.8, paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) are removed, 
paragraph (b)(6) is redesignated (b)(4), and paragraph (b)(3) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 284.8   Firm transportation service.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) An interstate pipeline that offers transportation service on a 
firm basis under subpart B or G of this part must provide all shippers 
with equal and timely access to information relevant to the 
availability of such service, including, but not limited to, the

[[Page 19219]]

availability of capacity at receipt points, on the mainline, at 
delivery points, and in storage fields, and whether the capacity is 
available directly from the pipeline or through capacity release. The 
information must be provided on an Electronic Bulletin Board with the 
features prescribed in Sec. 284.10(a) and as required by 
Sec. 284.10(b).
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 284.9, paragraph (b)(4) is removed, paragraph (b)(5) is 
redesignated (b)(4), and paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 284.9   Interruptible transportation service

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) An interstate pipeline that offers transportation service on an 
interruptible basis under subpart B or G of this part must provide all 
shippers with equal and timely access to information relevant to the 
availability of such service. The information must be provided on an 
Electronic Bulletin Board with the features prescribed in 
Sec. 284.10(a) and as required by Sec. 284.10(b).
* * * * *
    4. Section 284.10 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 284.10   Standards for Pipeline Business Operations and 
Communications.

    (a) Electronic Bulletin Boards. An interstate pipeline that is 
required by this chapter or by its tariff to display information on an 
Electronic Bulletin Board must provide for the following features on 
its board:
    (1) Downloading by users,
    (2) Daily back-up of information displayed on the board, which must 
be available for user review for at least three years,
    (3) Purging of information on completed transactions from current 
files,
    (4) Display of most recent entries ahead of information posted 
earlier, and
    (5) On-line help, a search function that permits users to locate 
all information concerning a specific transaction, and a menu that 
permits users to separately access the notices of available capacity, 
the marketing affiliate discount information, the marketing affiliate 
capacity allocation log, and the standards of conduct information.
    (b) Incorporation by Reference of Business Practice and Electronic 
Communication Standards. (1)(i) An interstate pipeline that transports 
gas under subpart B or G of this part must comply with the following 
business practice and electronic communication standards promulgated by 
the Gas Industry Standards Board, which are incorporated herein by 
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51:
    (A) Nominations Definitions 1.2.1 through 1.2.4 (Version 1), 
Standards 1.3.1 through 1.3.23 (Version 1), and Data Sets 1.4.1 through 
1.4.5 (Version 1);
    (B) Flowing Gas Standards 2.3.1 through 2.3.28 (Version 1) and Data 
Sets 2.4.1 through 2.4.4 (Version 1);
    (C) Invoicing Definition 3.2.1 (Version 1), Standards 3.3.1 through 
3.3.21 (Version 1), and Data Sets 3.4.1 through 3.4.3 (Version 1);
    (D) Electronic Delivery Mechanisms Standards 4.3.1 through 4.3.4 
(Version 1), except that pipelines must comply with Standards 4.3.1 and 
4.3.2 by January 1, 1997;
    (E) Capacity Release Definition 5.2.1 (Version 1), Standards 5.3.1 
through 5.3.29 (Version 1), and Data Sets 5.4.1 through 5.4.20 (Version 
1);
    (F) Electronic Data Interchange Implementation Guide, Capacity 
Release (Version 1.0).
    (ii) Copies of these standards may be obtained from the Gas 
Industry Standards Board, 1100 Louisiana, Suite 4925, Houston, TX 
77002. Copies may be inspected and copied at the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426.
    (2) Interstate pipelines must comply with these standards and 
protocols by January 1, 1997.

    Note--The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations

                  Appendix.--RM96-1-000--Comments Filed                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Commenters                          Abbreviations             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Forest & Paper         AF&PA.                                  
 Association.                                                           
Associated Gas Distributors...  AGD.                                    
Brooklyn Union Gas Company....  Brooklyn Union.                         
Central Illinois Light Company  CILCO.                                  
CNG Transmission Corporation..  CNG Transmission.                       
CNG Energy Services             CNG ESC.                                
 Corporation.                                                           
Coastal Gas Marketing Company.  Coastal.                                
Colorado Interstate Gas         CIG/ANR.                                
 Company and ANR Pipeline                                               
 Company.                                                               
Consolidated Natural Gas        CNG.                                    
 System.                                                                
East Ohio Gas Co., Hope Gas,    CNG LDCs.                               
 Inc., The Peoples Natural Gas                                          
 Co., Virginia Natural Gas,                                             
 Inc., & West Ohio Natural Gas                                          
 Co..                                                                   
Energy Managers Association...  EMA.                                    
EnerSoft Corp. and NYMEX        EnerSoft/NYMEX                          
 Technology Corp..                                                      
Equitrans, L.P................  Equitrans.                              
GasEDI........................  GasEDI.                                 
Gas Industry Standards Board..  GISB.                                   
GISB Services Segment           GISB Services Segment.                  
 Executive Committee Members.                                           
Independent Petroleum           IPAA.                                   
 Association of America.                                                
Interstate Natural Gas          INGAA.                                  
 Association of America.                                                
Iroquois Gas Transmission       Iroquois.                               
 System, L.P..                                                          
Koch Gateway Pipeline Company.  Koch Gateway.                           
Midland Cogeneration Venture    MCV.                                    
 Limited Partnership.                                                   
Minnegasco....................  Minnegasco.                             
Natural Gas Clearinghouse,      NGC/Conoco/Vastar.                      
 Conoco, Inc. and Vastar Gas                                            
 Marketing, Inc..                                                       
Natural Gas Council...........  Natural Gas Council.                    
Natural Gas Pipeline Company    Natural.                                
 of America.                                                            
Natural Gas Supply Association  NGSA.                                   
NorAm Energy Services, Inc....  NES.                                    
Northern Distributor Group....  NDG.                                    

[[Page 19220]]

                                                                        
Northern Indiana Public         Northern Indiana Distributors.          
 Service Company, Northern                                              
 Indiana Fuel and Light                                                 
 Company, and Kokomo Gas and                                            
 Fuel Company.                                                          
Northwest Industrial Gas Users  NWIGU.                                  
Pacific Gas and Electric        PG&E.                                   
 Company.                                                               
Pacific Gas Transmission        PGT.                                    
 Company.                                                               
PanEnergy Companies...........  PanEnergy.                              
SABRE Decision Technologies...  SDT.                                    
Southern California Edison      Edison.                                 
 Company.                                                               
The Peoples Gas Light and Coke  Peoples.                                
 Company, North Shore Gas                                               
 Company, and Northern                                                  
 Illinois Gas Company.                                                  
TransCapacity Limited           TransCapacity.                          
 Partnership.                                                           
United Distribution Companies.  UDC.                                    
Williams Interstate Natural     WINGS.                                  
 Gas System.                                                            
 Williston Basin Interstate     Williston.                              
 Pipeline Company.                                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[FR Doc. 96-10587 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P