[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 145 (Friday, July 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39053-39070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18623]


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

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; Order No. 587; Final Rule

    Issued July 17, 1996.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is issuing a final 
rule revising 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

[[Page 39054]]

and those with whom they do business. The regulations incorporate by 
reference the standards issued by the Gas Industry Standards Board 
(GISB).

DATES: The regulations are effective August 26, 1996.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of August 26, 1996.
    Compliance with the rule is based on a staggered scheduling with 
pro forma tariff filings due in October through December, 1996 and 
corresponding implementation in April through June, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
N.E., Washington, DC 20426.

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, N.E., 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 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 if dialing locally or 1-800-856-3920 if dialing 
long distance. To access CIPS, set your communications software to use 
19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400 or 1200bps, full duplex, no 
parity, 8 data bits, and 1 stop bit. The full text of this document 
will be available on CIPS indefinitely in ASCII and WordPerfect 5.1 
format for one year. 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

I. Introduction

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending 
its open access regulations to standardize business practices and 
procedures governing transactions between interstate natural gas 
pipelines, their customers, and others doing business with the 
pipelines. The standards govern several important business practices--
nominations, allocations, balancing, measurement, invoicing, and 
capacity release. They also establish protocols and file formats for 
electronic communication with pipelines relating to these business 
practices. The regulations incorporate by reference the standards 
published by the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB). The Commission 
also is establishing a compliance schedule requiring pipelines to make 
pro forma tariff filings in October through December 1996 and to 
implement the standards in April through June 1997.

II. Public Reporting Burden

    The final rule will 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 
will be a one-time estimated annual reporting burden of 6,720 hours (80 
hours per company) with the adoption of the standards/business 
practices as required herein. The initial implementation of the 
standards/business practices will require approximately 84 interstate 
natural gas pipelines to make tariff filings to conform their tariffs 
with the standards/business practices.1 (See FERC-545 burden 
detail in estimated burden table below.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden estimates in the previously issued Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NOPR) in the subject docket were based on 80 
respondents. Upon further evaluation by Commission staff prior to 
the issuance of the subject final rule, the estimated number of 
respondents was increased to 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the new data collection/requirements of FERC-549C there will 
be a one-time startup annual burden of 1,289,232 hours (15,348 hours 
per company). It is expected that any recurring annual burden will be 
minimal because of the operating efficiencies which will result with 
the adoption of the standards/business practices.
    The standards/data requirements contained in this final rule have 
been submitted previously to the Office of Management and Budget (with 
the NOPR issued in the subject docket) 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. 
Interested persons may send comments regarding these burden estimates 
or any other aspect of these collections of information, including 
suggestions for reductions of burden, 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]. Comments 
should be filed with the Office of Management and Budget as soon as 
possible. 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.

[[Page 39055]]



                                             ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      No. of       Total No. of      Hours Per     Total annual 
      Affected data collection/ requirement         respondents      responses       response          hours    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-549C (New Data Requirement)--Reporting/Data                                                                
 Requirement Burden.............................              84              84          15,348       1,289,232
FERC-545 (1902-0154)--Reporting/Data Requirement                                                                
 Burden.........................................              84              84              80           6,720
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Annual Hours (All Data Collections/                                                                 
       Requirements)............................              84              84          15,428       1,295,952
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above estimates include time for reviewing the requirements of 
the Commission's regulations, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the necessary data, and reviewing and 
completing the collection of information. Because the final rule adopts 
essentially the same information requirements that were contained in 
the proposed rule, we believe that the average filing burden is the 
same for the final rule.
    Data Collection/Requirement Costs: The Commission expects that the 
costs to comply with the required standards for business practices, 
data sets, and internet protocol setups will consist principally of 
startup costs. Although GISB has reached consensus on using Internet 
protocols, it has not finally determined the communication modality 
(i.e., public Internet or private network. Adoption of the 
communication standards will await GISB's final recommendation. 
However, since the costs to implement Internet protocols will not 
change significantly regardless of the communication vehicle used, the 
burden estimates in the NOPR and in this final rule include these 
costs, so that the burden estimates reflect the total cost of complying 
with the rule. The Commission estimates that the average annualized 
cost per respondent for the first year will be as follows:

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

    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the 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 will reduce the variations in pipeline business 
practices and will allow buyers to easily and efficiently obtain and 
transport gas from all potential sources of supply. The required 
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.
    In response to the NOPR issued April 24, 1995, in the subject 
docket, Viking Gas Transmission Company filed comments on the burden 
estimates and the associated annualized costs for compliance in the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Viking states that, even if the 
Commission's cost estimates are correct, implementing the standards 
would impose significant costs on a small pipeline, like Viking. Viking 
also maintains that the Commission has underestimated the costs to 
comply with the requirements adopted by the final rule and particularly 
to implement an information system. Viking contends that the Commission 
has used an hourly rate of $50 for computer service consultants by 
dividing the total estimated cost ($754,000) by the estimated hours 
(15,428). Viking maintains that, based on its experience, a cost of 
$100 to $150 per hour is more representative of costs for information 
system programmers.
    The Commission's hour and cost estimates are not appropriately used 
to derive an hourly rate for computer consulting services for 
comparison purposes, as Viking has done. The Commission's estimate of 
the number of hours for implementing the requirements is not limited to 
hours for computer specialists, but covers all employees involved in 
implementation. Similarly, the total cost is not solely related to 
consulting services, but includes other costs, such as hardware and 
hardware installation costs. Moreover, the vast proportion of the costs 
involved in complying with the regulations are one-time, start-up 
costs, so these are not costs pipelines will have to incur on an 
ongoing basis. Most important, the Commission finds that incurrence of 
these costs on a one-time basis is necessary to improve the efficiency 
with which crucial business transactions are conducted across the 
natural gas industry. The increased efficiency produced by these 
standards should, in the long run, reduce the costs of all participants 
in the market.

III. Background

    The process of standardizing business practices in the natural gas 
industry began with a Commission initiative to standardize electronic 
communication of capacity release transactions.\2\ As a result of this 
effort, participants from all segments of the natural gas industry 
began the process of developing standards for other business 
transactions, such as nominations and flowing gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To formalize the process of developing industry standards, the 
industry formed GISB as a consensus standards organization open to all 
members of the gas industry.\3\ 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).\4\ At the Executive Committee level, a consensus

[[Page 39056]]

of the five segments must approve each standard.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The scope of GISB's efforts initially was limited to 
standards for electronic communication. The industry, under the 
auspices of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 
(INGAA) and the Associated Gas Distributors (AGD), had begun 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.
    \4\ According to a March 27, 1996 letter from counsel for GISB, 
to the Secretary of the Commission (filed in this docket), GISB is 
pursuing accreditation by the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI). Accreditation involves ANSI's review of the process and 
procedures of the standards-developer 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing how important standards are to the development of an 
integrated natural gas network, the Commission encouraged the 
industry's efforts to develop the needed business standards.\6\ To 
evaluate the industry's progress, the Commission held a public 
conference on standardization on September 21, 1995, in Docket No. 
RM93-4-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Order No. 563-A, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles, at 
31,050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Almost all the speakers at the conference acknowledged that the 
industry had not achieved the anticipated progress. Even though GISB 
had promulgated standards for electronic communication of nomination 
and confirmation information, many participants maintained that 
standardizing electronic communication did not go far enough to provide 
for efficient integration of the pipeline grid. They contended that 
electronic communication standards would not increase efficiency 
because they failed to standardize the pipelines' disparate underlying 
business practices, so that shippers were still faced with having to 
learn the idiosyncratic requirements for conducting business on each 
pipeline.
    On October 25, 1995, the Commission issued an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) requesting the submission of detailed 
proposals from the industry, by March 15, 1996, for standards governing 
business processes and electronic communication for ten business 
practices identified by the industry as being of the highest priority--
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. 
The Commission also requested proposals for standards needed to 
facilitate gas flow across interconnecting pipelines. In the ANOPR, the 
Commission concluded that without common business practices and a 
common language for communication, the speed and efficiency with which 
shippers can transact business across multiple pipelines would continue 
to be severely compromised.
    On March 15, 1996, GISB filed 140 standards that its Standards 
Committee had approved by a consensus vote. These standards cover 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)). On April 12, 1996, GISB then filed data elements 
approved by the Standards Committee describing the specific information 
that would be used by industry participants to conduct these business 
transactions. By letter dated May 22, 1996, in this docket, GISB 
informed the Commission that its membership had approved the standards 
and datasets by the required 67% vote.
    Forty other parties also filed comments addressing the standards 
GISB was proposing. 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.
    On April 24, 1996, the Commission issued the NOPR proposing to 
revise its regulations to incorporate the GISB standards by 
reference.\7\ The Commission proposed to require pipelines to comply 
with these standards by January 1, 1997. Fifty comments were filed on 
the NOPR.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 19211 (May 1, 1996), 
IV FERC Stats. & Regs. Proposed Regulations para. 32,517 (Apr. 24, 
1996).
    \8\ The appendix lists those filing comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion

    The Commission is requiring interstate pipelines to comply with the 
requirements of the GISB consensus standards by incorporating the GISB 
standards by reference in section 284.10 of the Commission's 
regulations.\9\ Standards for business practices and communication are 
important elements in creating an integrated gas pipeline grid to 
complement the deregulated market for gas. For a competitive gas market 
to truly develop, shippers must have access to all available supply 
sources. A prerequisite for access, however, is the ability to move gas 
efficiently across multiple pipelines to its ultimate destination. 
Thus, shippers and marketers in today's market must conduct business 
transactions with multiple pipelines. As the industry has recognized, 
shippers cannot conduct multiple pipeline transactions efficiently if 
the business practices and communication protocols differ for each 
pipeline. For example, as the industry is presently structured, 
shippers on multiple pipelines incur added costs and delay from having 
to keep personnel up to date with the quirks of, and inconsistencies in 
operation between, individual pipeline electronic bulletin boards 
(EBBs). Industry-wide standards eliminate this inefficiency by enabling 
shippers to use the same procedures and processes to conduct business 
on all interstate pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ GISB's previously approved standards for capacity release 
transactions also will replace the current requirement, in section 
284.8(b)(5), that pipelines comply with standardized datasets and 
communication protocols. In addition, the EBB requirements of 
sections 284.8(b)(4) and 284.9(b)(4) will be moved to section 
284.10(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Commission sought to restructure business practices in the 
industry through Order Nos. 436 and 636, the Commission set out the 
broad policy parameters to be accomplished by the rules, but primarily 
left the implementation details to individual pipeline filings. 
However, subsequent experience clearly has shown that relying on 
individual pipeline procedures and operations will not create an 
integrated gas pipeline grid. To achieve that goal, the pipelines' 
business procedures must be standardized.
    The consensus standards significantly reduce the disparities and 
inconsistencies among pipeline business practices and communication 
modalities and make a meaningful contribution towards the effort to 
create a more unified, integrated natural gas transportation network. 
For example, the standards will simplify the process of nominating gas 
in several respects. They permit all shippers to nominate gas supplies 
to a pool so that gas packages can be aggregated. They provide 
increased flexibility by permitting shippers at least one intra-day 
nomination, so that they can change the amount of gas they receive 
during a day to better fit changing needs. Even standards as simple as 
establishing a convention for conversions from dekatherms to Gigajoules 
and rounding calculations to the nearest dekatherm or Gigajoule can 
provide significant integration benefits by enabling shippers and 
third-party service providers to deal with all pipelines, as well as to 
program their computers, in the same manner, without the inefficiency 
of having to deal with incompatible conventions used by individual 
pipelines.
    At least as important, the standards will permit shippers to 
communicate with every pipeline using the same standard set of 
information data elements and the same information protocols. Using 
these standards and protocols, shippers and third-party service 
providers will be able to create

[[Page 39057]]

standard display formats for conducting business with all pipelines, 
thus reducing or eliminating the need to use the individual pipeline 
EBBs.
    While these standards represent a broad consensus of the industry, 
the Commission recognizes that not every standard commands universal 
support. In a democratic society, unanimity on matters of common 
concern is neither expected nor necessary. Standardization, by 
definition, requires accommodation of varying interests and needs, and 
rarely can there be a perfect standard satisfactory to all. The 
Commission is satisfied that GISB's process is open and fair and that 
the resulting standards represent broad agreement across all segments 
of the industry.
    Since it is the industry that must operate under these standards, 
deferring to the considered judgment of the consensus of the industry 
is both reasonable and appropriate. While the Commission legitimately 
has given the GISB standards great weight, it also has reviewed the 
standards, and the comments, and finds that the standards are 
reasonable and represent a considerable step towards the goal of 
creating a unified pipeline grid.
    Both GISB and virtually all the comments recommend the Commission 
not require implementation on January 1, 1997, as proposed in the NOPR 
to reduce the possibility of disruption during the peak winter heating 
season. The Commission is accepting the consensus proposal by GISB for 
staggered filings and implementation: pro forma compliance filings will 
be due in the fall of 1996 with implementation taking place from April 
through June, 1997.
    Although GISB has approved the data elements for the business 
practices and the use of Internet protocols for electronic 
communication, it has not yet finalized its communication standards. 
For instance, it has not finally determined whether to use the Public 
internet or private networks as the standard communication vehicle. 
While GISB's Future Technology Task Force filed an interim report on 
June 7, 1996, recommending the use of the public Internet, with an HTTP 
protocol, that recommendation is still subject to a pilot test program 
to be completed by September 30, 1996. At that time, the Future 
Technology Task Force plans to issue the final communication standards 
and the technical implementation guide.
    Until GISB finalizes its communication protocols, issuing a final 
order on such standards would be premature. Accordingly, the Commission 
will issue a final order on communication protocols after the 
submission of GISB's final communication standards. By issuing the 
final rule on the remainder of the business practices at this time, the 
Commission is providing the industry with sufficient time to make the 
tariff changes necessary to meet the October through December 
compliance filings. At the same time, delaying the issuance of the 
final rule on communication protocols should not effect the ability of 
the industry to meet the April 1, 1997 start of implementation. Despite 
being fully aware that the communication protocols are not complete, 
neither GISB, the Future Technology Task Force, nor the commenters have 
suggested that any delay in the April implementation date is necessary.
    The Commission recognizes that these standards are not a finished 
work. Standards development is not like a sculptor forever casting his 
creation in bronze, but like a jazz musician who takes a theme and 
constantly revises, enhances, and reworks it. A number of those 
commenting on GISB's March 15, 1996 filing and on the NOPR offer 
suggestions on additional standards that they believe are needed. 
Because many of the issues raised in the comments have merit, the 
Commission established a procedure and a schedule under which GISB and 
the industry are to submit detailed proposals for handling these issues 
by September 30, 1996.
    The Commission will address below the comments received on the 
NOPR.

A. Implementation Date

    On one point, virtually all the commenters are agreed: the 
standards should not be implemented on January 1, 1997, as originally 
proposed by the Commission.10 All segments of the industry are 
concerned that rapid implementation of new operating procedures and 
computer technologies may be prone to problems and are particularly 
concerned about such problems occurring during the winter heating 
season when the pipeline system is under the most stress. GISB states 
that due to the interrelation of all the standards, a phased 
implementation of groups of standards would be difficult to devise. 
Instead, it proposes, with the backing of virtually all commenters, a 
staggered implementation plan in which the pipelines are divided into 
three groups with tariff filings to comply with this rule being made in 
October, November, and December of 1996, and corresponding 
implementation of the standards in April, May, and June of 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Only one commenter has requested an earlier implementation 
schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission will accept the GISB proposal for staggered filings 
and implementation to reduce the risk of implementation complications 
and resulting disruption to the industry. Because the development of an 
integrated pipeline grid requires uniform pipeline adoption of the 
standards adopted in this rule, the Commission finds that pipelines' 
existing tariff provisions that are inconsistent with these standards 
are unjust and unreasonable under section 5 of the Natural Gas Act. To 
determine the just and reasonable practices under section 5, the 
Commission is requiring pipelines to make filings to comply with the 
standards adopted in the regulations. Accordingly, pipelines must file 
pro forma tariff sheets according to the schedule set forth later in 
this order to establish their compliance with the regulations.

B. Incorporation of the GISB Standards by Reference

    NGC/Conoco/Vastar take issue with the Commission's incorporation of 
the GISB standards by reference. They have submitted an alternative set 
of standards and contend the Commission has failed to render a reasoned 
decision on each of their proposed standards as compared with the 
comparable GISB standard. In particular, NGC/Conoco/Vastar contend that 
the Commission erred in stating, in the NOPR, that its reliance on the 
GISB standards was consistent with Sec. 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTT&AA) of 1995 11 and 
OMB Circular A-119,12 which require federal agencies to use 
private sector consensus standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pub L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996).
    \12\ ''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 contrast, other commenters are supportive of the Commission's 
reliance on the GISB standards. Brooklyn Union best expresses these 
views when it states the Commission should adopt the GISB standards, 
without modification, because these standards ``are the product of 
countless hours of deliberations by representatives of all segments of 
the natural gas industry and reflect a hard fought consensus concerning 
the critical business practices addressed.''

[[Page 39058]]

1. Consistency With the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act and OMB Circular A-119
    NGC/Conoco/Vastar argue that Sec. 12(d) of the NTT&AA does not 
require the Commission to adopt the GISB standards. They maintain that 
adoption of regulatory standards, such as the GISB business practice 
standards, is inconsistent with the Act's focus on adoption of 
technical standards.
    The Commission agrees that, by its terms, Sec. 12(d) of the NTT&AA 
does not require Federal agencies to adopt private sector consensus 
standards if the use of such standards is inconsistent with applicable 
law or otherwise impractical.13 However, the Commission finds that 
adoption of the GISB standards is consistent with the intent of the Act 
and OMB Circular A-119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NGC/Conoco/Vastar argue that the Act does not apply to 
independent regulatory agencies, like the Commission, citing to a 
statement by Senator Rockefeller that Sec. 12 should not apply to 
independent regulatory agencies. 142 Cong. Rec. S1081 (daily ed. 
Feb. 7, 1996). On its face, the statute specifically applies to 
``all Federal agencies and departments,'' and OMB Circular A-119, on 
which Sec. 12(d) of the NTT&AA was based, defines executive agency 
as including any ``independent commission, board, bureau, office, 
agency * * * including regulatory commission or board.'' ``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)). See Remarks by Congresswoman Morella and Congressman 
Brown (cosponsors), 142 Cong. Rec. H1264, H1226, daily ed. Feb. 27, 
1996)(intent of Sec. 12(d) of the NTT&AA to codify OMB Circular A-
119). In addition, Senator Rockefeller's particular concern was 
possible conflicts that may result because some independent 
regulatory agencies, like the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(CPSC), have statutory requirements regarding the use of private 
sector standards. In the absence of such statutory requirements, 
however, there seems little reason to distinguish between Federal 
departments, like the Food and Drug Administration, with 
responsibility for protecting health and safety, and independent 
regulatory agencies with like responsibilities. In any event, the 
Act does not inhibit the full exercise of agencies' regulatory 
authority since agencies are not required to utilize private 
consensus standards when the agency determines that the standards 
are not adequate for its purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As NGC/Conoco/Vastar seem to concede, the standardized data 
elements and the communication protocols for delivering this 
information electronically fall within the Act's definition of 
performance-based or design-specific technical specifications.14 
And, the business practice standards are directly related to the 
communication standards, because, as the industry concluded, 
standardizing the technical aspects of communication cannot achieve the 
required efficiency without standardization of the underlying business 
practices. Even standing on their own, the business practice standards 
are akin to management system practices which are included as technical 
standards in the Act.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 142 Cong. Rec. S1081 (daily ed. Feb. 7, 1996) (internet 
standards are technical standards covered by the Act) (statement of 
Senator Rockefeller).
    \15\ See, e.g., 42 CFR 405.2150, 60 FR 48039 (Sept. 18, 1995) 
(Health Care Financing Administration incorporation of Association 
for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation business process 
standards for reuse of hemodialyzers); 49 CFR Part 659, 60 FR 67034 
(Dec. 27, 1995)(Federal Transit Administration incorporation by 
reference of APTA rail transit system safety plans); 49 CFR 192.11, 
193.2005 (Department of Transportation incorporation by reference of 
practice standards relating to transportation of petroleum gas and 
LNG); Implementation Guide for use with 10 CFR Part 830.120, 
Department of Energy, #G-830.120-Rev. 0 (April 15, 1994) 
(incorporating management standards for quality assurance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, regardless whether Sec. 12(d) of the NTT&AA specifically 
applies here, the Commission can rely on private sector standards when 
it finds that these standards further the Commission's achievement of 
its regulatory goals. 16 In this case, GISB's consensus standards 
are entitled to great weight since the industry possesses specialized 
expertise and knowledge of the relevant business practices and 
electronic communication technologies and, in the final analysis, the 
members of the industry are the ones that have to conduct business 
under these standards.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Passage of Sec. 12(d) of the NTT&AA certainly is not 
necessary for the Commission to rely upon private sector standards 
when it deems such reliance appropriate to fulfill its regulatory 
mission. Even prior to the passage of the Act, the Commission relied 
on private standards, as did other agencies which found such 
reliance an important means for helping to carry out their mandates. 
See Northern Natural Gas Company, 53 F.P.C. 699, 702 (1975) (NFPA 
Standard No. 59-A); 16 CFR Material Approved for Incorporation by 
Reference, at 483 (1996) (listing standards incorporated by Consumer 
Product Safety Commission).
    \17\ As Congressman Brown stated:
    It is much cheaper and more efficient for the government to rely 
on the hard work and experience of these committees rather than 
reinventing the world. These groups are better equipped than the 
Government to understand all points of view and to keep up with the 
state of the art in technical standards.
    142 Cong. Rec. H1226 (daily ed. Feb. 27, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questar suggests that to ensure clarity the Commission should not 
incorporate the standards by reference, but should restate in the final 
rule the standards it specifically adopts. The Commission sees no need 
for such a voluminous republication. Incorporation by reference is an 
accepted method of adopting private sector standards.18 The 
Commission can specifically state in the regulations any changes in the 
pipelines' obligations through deletion of, or revisions or additions 
to the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 1 CFR 51.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. GISB's Consensus Process
    NGC/Conoco/Vastar further contend that Sec. 12(d) of the NTT&AA 
should not apply because GISB's procedural process was flawed and thus 
did not ensure consensus. They contend that the Task Force meetings 
(which produced the initial draft standards) were dominated by pipeline 
interests, that NGC/Conoco/Vastar's comments on the Task Force 
recommendations were shortened in the summary produced for the 
Executive Committee, that the Executive Committee did not have 
sufficient time to consider all comments, and that the Executive 
Committee is structured to disenfranchise independent marketers.19 
AF&PA, EMA, and NWIGU, while generally supportive of the GISB 
standards, are concerned that the standards may not reflect true 
consensus because their members do not have the time and resources to 
participate in the GISB process. BGE also expresses concern about the 
lack of balance at the Task Force meetings. While BGE believes the 
standards filed by GISB on March 15, 1996 are not weighted towards any 
one segment, it suggests in the next round, GISB should use balanced 
subcommittees to develop its standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NGC/Conoco/Vastar maintain that the marketers on the 
Executive Committee are affiliated with pipelines and, thus, cannot 
represent the marketing interest if it conflicts with the goal of 
the dominant pipeline parent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that GISB's process was fair and that its 
voting procedures ensure that a broad based consensus of all industry 
segments support these standards. All segments are afforded the 
opportunity to participate in the process of developing the standards. 
Each segment chooses its own representatives on the Board of Directors 
and Executive Committee. The requirement for consensus voting at the 
Executive Committee level assures that no industry segment can dominate 
the process and that the resulting standards do represent an agreement 
acceptable to all industry segments. Finally, a super-majority (67%) of 
the entire GISB membership approved the standards.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ GISB has established a Process Subcommittee to deal with 
recommendations regarding GISB's operating practices. NGC/Conoco/
Vastar cite no complaint to the Process Subcommittee about the Task 
Force procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What is most crucial, is that the Executive Committee reviewed the 
recommendations of the Task Forces, thus ensuring consensus support for 
the

[[Page 39059]]

standards.21 The record shows that, for the most part, the 
accepted standards received virtually unanimous support from the 
Executive Committee members.22 In any large proceeding, such as 
the GISB undertaking, comments must be summarized for the 
decisionmaker. While the Executive Committee acted quickly to meet the 
Commission's deadline, the record of the proceedings shows no evidence 
that its members ignored or failed to seek clarification of comments, 
or otherwise did not take their responsibilities seriously. The 
Executive Committee conducted its public meeting for two full days 
working late into the night and had previously conducted several 
preliminary sessions to discuss changes to the standards. The Executive 
Committee did not act as a mere rubber stamp for the recommendations 
made by the Task Forces. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary. The 
Executive Committee reached independent decisions, making significant 
changes to the Task Force recommendations. For example, the Executive 
Committee changed a number of the Task Force recommendations, such as 
changing the 11:00 a.m. nomination deadline proposed by the Task Group 
to 11:30 a.m.23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ANSI, for example, does not impose a balance requirement on 
subgroups when their role is to assist the standards committee by, 
for instance, drafting all or a portion of a standard. American 
National Standards Institute, Procedures for the Development and 
Coordination of American National Standards, 18 (Sec. A.6(b)) (March 
22, 1995).
    \22\ See Volume III of GISB's March 15, 1996 filing, Voting 
Workpapers.
    \23\ Compare Volume II of GISB's March 15, 1996 filing, Tab 2, 
proposed Standard 1.3 with the final approved standard 1.3.2. See 
also Volume III of GISB's March 15, 1996 filing, Voting Workpapers 
(showing that the Executive Committee frequently voted to omit Task 
Force proposed standards, change the standards to principles, defer 
consideration of standards, and move standards to other sections).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds NGC/Conoco/Vastar's protestation of GISB 
disenfranchisement of independent marketers somewhat enigmatic, since 
NGC itself is a member of the GISB Board of Directors. NGC/Conoco/
Vastar have shown no record of any complaint to the Process 
Subcommittee or the GISB Board of Directors concerning the 
representation of independent marketers, nor have they produced 
evidence showing that GISB explicitly excluded independent marketers 
from the Executive Committee, such as by showing that an independent 
marketer was passed over for a vacancy on the Executive Committee. They 
also have not explained why independent marketers' interests are not 
adequately represented on the Executive Committee by other independent 
interests such as producers (who sell to marketers) or LDCs and end-
users (who buy from marketers).
    In a supplemental filing made on June 11, 1996, NGC/Conoco/Vastar 
24 contend that the lack of consensus is evident from the number 
of parties seeking changes, revisions, or waivers to the GISB 
standards. In the first place, given the varied nature of the industry 
and the differing interests of individual parties, to expect unanimity 
is not realistic. The Commission's pre-GISB Working Group process for 
developing capacity release standards often suffered from the need to 
achieve virtual unanimity before making a recommendation. The GISB 
consensus approach is designed to permit progress, while at the same 
time assuring that there is reasonable, although not unanimous, 
agreement across the industry on the standards adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This time joined by Tejas Power Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, considering the diversity of interests in this industry, 
the level of agreement with these standards actually appears quite 
high. The number of parties objecting is relatively small compared to 
the number in the industry (most of whom did not file comments in this 
proceeding). Even on the issue--gas day and nomination timeline--that 
elicited the largest number of comments, there are only about 10 Mid-
West and West Coast LDCs that object. The vast majority of LDCs 
apparently are satisfied with the GISB standards.25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Indeed, all five LDC representatives on the Executive 
Committee voted to approve these standards. See Volume III of GISB's 
March 15, 1996 filing, Voting Workpapers, Standards 1.3 and 1.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All parties must make a determination whether active participation 
in every aspect of the GISB process serves their corporate interests. 
But the benefit of the consensus process, compared with the previous 
Working Group process, is that parties need not be present to have 
their views represented. Any party can submit comments to the Task 
Force and the Executive Committee that these groups must consider. Each 
segment chooses its own representatives on the Executive Committee, and 
any party can communicate its concerns to its representatives. And, 
each segment of the industry has equal voting weight on the Executive 
Committee.
    The Commission finds that overall the GISB process was fair and 
assured a broad consensus supporting the proposed standards. BGE 
suggests that, for the future, the Commission should endorse the use of 
small balanced subcommittees to better prevent domination by certain 
interests. Changes to organizational structure are for GISB and its 
membership to determine, and the Commission, therefore, will not 
dictate the use of any particular process for conducting Task Force 
meetings in the future.

3. Commission Oversight of the GISB Process

    NGC/Conoco/Vastar contend that the Commission, by relying on the 
GISB standards, has abdicated its responsibility to make a reasoned 
decision on each of the proposed standards. They suggest that, upon 
review, implementation of some of these standards will put at risk some 
of the progress already achieved over the last decade in creating 
competitive markets. They cite to the following statement from the 
Commission's OASIS rule dealing with communication protocols for the 
electric industry:

    However, we reject entirely the notion that the Commission need 
not approve the Standards and Protocols and that these matters can 
be left to the industry for implementation and self-policing. 
Although we continue to seek industry consensus, the Commission must 
reserve final decisions to itself. We cannot turn over the process 
of approving and enforcing OASIS requirements to the industry. The 
Commission does not believe that resolution of the outstanding 
issues or future changes will occur more quickly without Commission 
oversight. Nor do we believe that merely by announcing broad policy 
guidelines we would be creating a mechanism that would be sufficient 
to allow the Commission to revise regulations quickly. Accordingly, 
we will not abdicate our responsibility to decide these issues 
ourselves; nor shall we delegate responsibility for making these 
decisions to anyone else. 26

    \26\ Open Access Same-Time Information System (formerly Real-
Time Information Networks) and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 889, 
61 FR 21737 (May 10, 1996), III FERC Stats. and Regs. Preambles 
para.31,035, at 31,591 (Apr. 24, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NGC/Conoco/Vastar further cite to Justice Department statements that 
improperly conducted standards activities may inhibit, rather than 
facilitate competition, in arguing that the Commission should not 
abdicate its responsibility to review each of the proposed standards.
    The Commission's action here is entirely consistent with its 
approach in the OASIS rule as well as the Commission's former rule 
establishing capacity release standards. In the portion of the OASIS 
rule cited by NGC/Conoco/Vastar, the Commission was responding to a 
request that the Commission abandon its intention to approve standards 
and, instead, authorize an industry group to set and enforce detailed 
standards under broad

[[Page 39060]]

policy guidelines. The Commission rejected this request in the OASIS 
rule and is not delegating comparable authority to GISB in this 
proceeding. The Commission has noticed the GISB standards and is 
explicitly adopting those standards into its regulations. While GISB 
can modify or add to its standards if it chooses, those changes are not 
automatically incorporated into the Commission's regulations. The 
Commission is adopting a specific version of the GISB standards; 
pipelines will not be required to abide by subsequent versions of the 
standards issued by GISB unless and until the Commission incorporates 
the new version into the regulations.
    Just as in OASIS and the capacity release proceedings, the 
Commission here determined that standardization of certain practices is 
required and detailed the areas in which such standards are needed. In 
each of the proceedings, the Commission then sought a consensus from 
the industry as to the technical standards needed, which, after review, 
the Commission adopted.
    Indeed, NGC/Conoco/Vastar, for the most part, do not take issue 
with the GISB standards themselves; rather, they contend the Commission 
has not addressed their concerns that some of GISB's standards do not 
go far enough or that additional standards are necessary. They suggest, 
for instance, that GISB's requirement that pipelines establish at least 
one pooling point needs to be enhanced by additional standards, such as 
requirements for pipelines to offer firm pools and to provide the same 
priority to pool volumes as the take-away transportation agreement to 
which they are nominated.
    The Commission has not ignored NGC/Conoco/Vastar's suggestions for 
additional standards. NGC/Conoco/Vastar do not contend that the GISB 
standards cannot be implemented in their present form, only that these 
standards can be improved. Many of NGC/Conoco/Vastar's points may have 
merit.27 However, the Commission finds no reason to delay the 
significant benefits that can be achieved from implementation of the 
current standards while these issues are resolved. The Commission has 
established a schedule which will permit GISB and the industry to 
devise the appropriate means of handling these issues. Establishing 
procedures that give the industry the first opportunity to solve these 
problems is far preferable to the Commission's attempting to decide at 
this stage what changes are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Commission has, for example, found that customers 
should not lose priority as a result of pooling and that priority 
from receipt point to pooling point generally should be based on the 
take-away customers transportation agreement. Koch Gateway Pipeline 
Company, 75 FERC para. 61,283 (1996). Implementing these general 
principles may well require the establishment of firm pools as 
suggested by NGC/Conoco/Vastar, and the Commission expects GISB to 
consider these issues for its September 30, 1996 filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is fully aware of the potential for private sector 
standards committees to inhibit competition, particularly if one 
interest can block the adoption of a necessary standard.28 GISB's 
rules provide that at least two votes from each industry segment are 
needed to approve a standard. While such a rule is important to 
ensuring that any approved standard commands a consensus of the 
industry, the rule also can permit one industry segment voting as a 
block to defeat a needed standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 
492 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That is precisely why the Commission has not previously, and is not 
now, delegating to the industry the responsibility to develop the 
needed standards. The Commission took, and is still taking, an active 
role in identifying the business areas needing standardization. The 
Commission provided the industry the opportunity to apply its expertise 
to craft solutions that command broad agreement throughout the 
industry, and has appropriately given these consensus solutions great 
weight. In those areas where additional consideration of modifications 
or enhancement of the standards may be warranted, the Commission has 
established a schedule for the industry to consider refinements. And, 
the Commission stands ready to resolve issues if necessary.29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ For example, in the EBB Rulemaking Proceeding in Docket No. 
RM93-4, the industry was unable to reach consensus on a proposal to 
establish an Index of Customers. The Commission ultimately 
determined the data elements to be included in the Index. Revisions 
to Uniform System of Accounts, Forms, Statements, and Reporting 
Requirements for Natural Gas Companies, Order No. 581, 60 FR 53019, 
53053 (Oct. 11, 1995), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles para. 
31,026, at 31,505 (Sept. 28, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission would not implement these standards if to do so 
would undermine or inhibit accomplishment of the goals of Order No. 
636. In fact, as noted earlier, it is the very lack of standardization 
in pipeline implementation of Order No. 636 that may impede the full 
realization of the competitive market that the Commission sought to 
create in Order No. 636. These standards make a decided improvement in 
the current system, and, accordingly, the Commission will accept them.
4. Incorporation of GISB's Principles
    In the NOPR, the Commission did not propose to incorporate by 
reference GISB's principles, because the principles do not purport to 
establish obligations for pipelines. GISB comments that it views the 
principles as being of equal importance to the definitions, standards, 
and datasets, and NGSA recommends that the Commission also incorporate 
the principles, given their interrelationship with the definitions, 
standards, and datasets. Some commenters also suggest that the 
Commission redesignate certain principles as standards.
    The Commission will incorporate the principles, since they are a 
part of the GISB documentation and provide guidance as to the intended 
meaning of the standards. Pipelines, however, will not be expected to 
comply with the principles unless they are officially adopted as 
standards.

C. Additions to or Revisions of the Standards

1. Need for a Standard for Nominations Outside of the Nomination 
Schedule
    In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to adopt GISB's uniform 
nomination timetable for the entire country: a 9 a.m. central clock 
time (CCT) 30 gas day and the 11:30 a.m. start to the nomination 
process. A number of comments on GISB's March 15, 1996 filing claimed 
this nomination schedule lacked sufficient flexibility. The Commission 
solicited comments on whether the GISB standards provide some of the 
increased nomination flexibility requested by shippers because, as long 
as a pipeline has unscheduled capacity available, shippers can nominate 
gas even if the 11:30 a.m. nomination deadline has passed or they have 
not previously submitted a nomination for that day. If the GISB 
standards did not provide this flexibility, the Commission asked 
whether an additional standard is needed to require pipelines to 
process nominations outside of the nomination schedule if they have 
available capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Central clock time adjusts for daylight savings time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GISB states that its standards provide for flexibility and that the 
Commission's suggested standard is unnecessary because, under its 
standards, a pipeline is not prevented from accepting nominations at 
any time and has an incentive to do so in order to increase throughput. 
Other commenters assert that the GISB standards do not require 
pipelines to schedule capacity outside the standard nomination 
deadlines even

[[Page 39061]]

if they have unscheduled capacity. Some contend that pipelines should 
not be required to accept such out-of-time nominations, because the 
pipelines are not yet ready for a continuous 24-hour-a-day nomination 
process. Imposing such a requirement, they assert, would impose 
additional administrative burdens and cost on the pipelines. Other 
commenters assert that imposition of such a requirement would be 
beneficial.
    The commenters misconstrued the Commission's inquiry. The 
Commission was not suggesting that pipelines necessarily should be 
required to move immediately to 24-hour-a-day nominations. Rather, 
within normal and regular business hours, the Commission saw little 
reason that pipelines with available capacity could not accept late 
nominations.31 Accepting such late nominations would not affect 
other shippers (since capacity was available) and should not impose 
significant cost or administrative burdens on pipelines, while it could 
provide the additional flexibility requested by shippers. Given the 
responses, the Commission will not draft an additional standard, but it 
fully expects pipelines with available capacity to provide nominating 
flexibility outside of the standard schedule. The Commission and the 
industry can evaluate the pipelines' response in the future to 
determine whether an additional standard needs to be imposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See the comment by Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf, stating that 
pipelines should be able to insist that nomination changes be made 
during normal business hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Changes or Revisions Suggested by Commenters
    The issues that drew the largest number of comments (but still only 
14) concerned various aspects of GISB's uniform nomination timetable: 
the 9 a.m. CCT gas day and the 11:30 a.m. start to the nomination 
process. Some contend that requiring all nominations to be submitted at 
the same time impedes efficiency because, they argue, varied schedules 
would permit parties bumped on one pipeline to renominate on other 
pipelines.32 Mid-West LDCs complain that GISB's 9 a.m. gas day 
reduces their nomination flexibility compared with the 12 noon gas day 
currently used by some of their pipelines.33 AF&PA, however, 
suggests that the gas day should coincide with the standard day in the 
electric industry, which begins at midnight, because of the close 
interrelation between the gas and electric markets. PG&E, a combination 
LDC and electric utility, and Edison, an electrical utility, on the 
West Coast, contend that the 11:30 a.m. start for the nomination 
process is too early.34 SoCalGas, a large West Coast LDC, however, 
does not recommend a change to the starting nomination time in the GISB 
standard. On the other hand, National Fuel Distribution contends the 
timeline is too late for East Coast shippers, requiring them to work 
beyond their normal business hours. NGC/Conoco/Vastar and AF&PA suggest 
that a staggered nomination timeline with upstream pipelines going 
first would be more efficient, while PG&E and Edison suggest a regional 
nomination timeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See the comments of NGC/Conoco/Vastar, AF&PA, CGM, and 
Natural.
    \33\ The Mid-West LDCs are CILCO, Illinois Power, National Fuel 
Distribution, NDG/Minnegasco, Peoples/North Shore/Northern Illinois.
    \34\ PG&E, for instance, claims that national weather service 
data are not received until 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Pacific time 
(9:30 to 10:00 a.m. daylight savings time) and that shippers cannot 
process these data in time to meet the GISB 11:30 CCT timeline and, 
thus, would have to rely on stale weather data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some pipelines (but not all that filed comments) 35 and other 
shippers 36 complain about the use of CCT because of the expense 
involved in having to change their metering twice a year and the 
inconvenience of having to deal with a 23 and 25 hour day. WINGS points 
out that many gathering companies use standard time, not clock time, 
and contends that standard time will provide for better integration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See the comments of CIG/ANR, Natural, PGT, Viking, WINGS, 
and Williston Basin.
    \36\ See the comments of SoCalGas and Peoples/North Shore/
Northern Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GISB responds that the standard nomination timeline allows a 
shipper whose transaction spans more than one pipeline the certainty 
that the transaction will really ``work'' as contemplated. GISB states 
that as the industry currently operates, staggered nomination deadlines 
can leave a shipper with one scheduled pipeline and one unscheduled 
pipeline. In contrast, the standard nomination deadline gives a shipper 
assurance that each link in its transaction chain can be scheduled at 
one time. GISB also points out that its standards provide for 
flexibility, for instance, by permitting shippers one intra-day 
nomination. Brooklyn Union contends the Commission should not ``water 
down'' industry-wide standards by adopting regional solutions, because 
such regional solutions would perpetuate the existing system of 
conflicting definitions and mutually inconsistent standards that has 
thwarted the effort to establish an integrated pipeline grid.
    The adoption of standards obviously requires changes and sacrifices 
by all parties and, the Commission recognizes that the effects may not 
always be spread equally among everyone in the industry. But the 
question is not whether an alternative solution may work better for 
some parties, but, what is best for the entirety of the interstate 
pipeline grid. There can be no perfect or correct solution. None of the 
commenters opposing the standard nomination schedule have submitted 
data or other evidence to show that their approaches would necessarily 
create a better result for the entire industry than the approach 
supported by the consensus of the industry.
    The Commission accepts the consensus agreement that a standard 
nomination timeline is necessary to provide certainty and security for 
nomination and scheduling. For example, an integrated pipeline grid 
means that an East Coast LDC can nominate gas from a producer located 
in any time-zone on the North American continent. If an upstream-
downstream system or a regional system were used, the LDC would not get 
confirmation of the first leg of the journey until well after it gets 
confirmation of the final downstream leg (which is probably well after 
the close of its business day). In addition, as NGSA and others point 
out, all these standards must work together as an integrated whole. 
Thus, while using central standard, as opposed to clock time, may 
reduce some pipeline costs, it also could exacerbate some of the timing 
problems addressed by the West Coast shippers by making the nomination 
deadlines more out of synch with individuals' business day. Adoption of 
clock time for the pipeline industry also is likely to lead other 
industry participants, like gatherers, to adopt a similar schedule to 
maintain the efficiency of the market. While ultimately, coordination 
of the gas and electric markets should be considered both industries 
should be involved in determining the best method of achieving such 
integration. GISB and the electric OASIS Working Groups should 
establish liaisons to explore how best to coordinate business and 
electronic standards to promote efficiency in the overall energy 
market.
    For the West Coast and Mid-West shippers, the standards provide 
sufficient flexibility to make adjustments to nominations. The ability 
to use intra-day nominations provides shippers with the flexibility to 
adjust their nominations to respond to changes in circumstances. In 
addition, as discussed previously, pipelines with uncommitted capacity 
should provide

[[Page 39062]]

shippers with flexibility to submit late nominations within reasonable 
time frames, so that shippers bumped on one pipeline can reroute their 
capacity on other pipelines.
    CILCO contends that, if the Commission retains the nation-wide 
nomination timetable, it should at least establish a standard for 
intra-day nominations permitting a shipper submitting an intra-day 
nomination for firm receipt and delivery points to bump shippers using 
these as secondary or interruptible points. 37 While providing 
bumping rights for primary points would enhance primary firm shippers' 
flexibility, such bumping rights could upset the expectations of firm 
shippers using secondary points and interruptible shippers that had 
received confirmed nominations for their nominated points. The 
Commission will not resolve the balance between these interests at this 
time, since it understands that GISB is considering intra-day 
procedures for its September 30, 1996 filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ AF&PA, EMA, and NGC/Conoco/Vastar also request a similar 
clarification of bumping rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural asks for clarification that as long as no one is adversely 
affected by a deviation, parties can agree on a different gas day to 
meet operating needs. For the most part, the Commission discourages 
changes to the standards because the very purpose of standardization is 
for all parties to use the same processes and procedures. However, as 
discussed in the next section, GISB envisions that pipelines may be 
able to exceed the standards so long as these deviations do not 
adversely effect other parties. Thus, in some circumstances, pipelines 
and individual shippers may be able to agree to additional flexibility 
in nomination procedures, subject to the important caveat that the 
change does not degrade the rights of other shippers.
    Commenters also suggest changes to a variety of other specific 
standards, generally with only one or a very few commenters challenging 
each standard. As merely one example, NGC/Conoco/Vastar, AF&PA, and EMA 
contend that the period for resolving invoicing disputes should be two 
years, while the consensus of the industry was that expedition in 
handling disputes was important and agreed on a six-month period. In 
this case, as in the other challenges to the consensus standards, the 
issue is not susceptible to factual resolution; it is a matter of 
judgment as to what approach is most efficient and will best serve the 
needs of the entire industry. The Commission's goal in this proceeding 
was to achieve a set of standards that the majority of the industry 
could support. After having reviewed the comments and the GISB 
standards, the Commission concludes that the industry consensus 
standards effect a sound balance between the needs of all segments and 
areas of the country and accepts these standards.
    These standards also are not the final word. As experience is 
gained operating under these standards, changes or revisions may be 
needed. The industry and GISB need to be alert to such possibilities 
for improving standards, and GISB has a procedure by which parties can 
submit requests for changes to standards. 38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ GISB Procedures For Adopting Standards, Sec. 2.1. Indeed, 
GISB has received a request for changes to Nomination Standard 1.3.1 
dealing with the standard gas day. GISB Standards Action Bulletin, 
June 15, 1996, Vol. 2, Number 10, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Requests for Clarification

1. Pipelines Exceeding the Standards
    In the NOPR, the Commission requested 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 
was unsure whether some standards should be considered inviolate, 
because any change would have adverse repercussions for non-agreeing 
parties.
    GISB responds that its intent is to permit pipelines to exceed 
standards, so long as the changes do not have a negative impact on 
contracting and non-contracting parties. For example, it states that a 
pipeline may accept a nomination outside the nomination deadline if 
doing so will not affect service to those who submit nominations on 
time. Brooklyn Union, Tenneco Energy, and ECT support the principle 
that GISB's standards should be considered minimums. ECT suggests that 
pipelines should be able to exceed the standards, so long as shippers 
can operate on the pipeline under the minimum standard. Southern 
supports the concept that pipelines can exceed the GISB standards and 
suggests that the Commission make this point clear, by revising 
Sec. 284.10 to remove the requirement that pipelines ``comply with'' 
the GISB standards and substitute the phrase that pipelines must ``meet 
or exceed'' the standards. NGC/Conoco/Vastar argue that whether 
pipelines can exceed standards varies, depending on the standard in 
question and whether shippers need to rely on that standard or whether 
the so-called improvement is detrimental to some parties.
    The Commission endorses the principle that pipelines can exceed the 
GISB standards. In some cases, this principle is easy to apply. For 
example, pipelines can permit more than one intra-day nomination 
because the pipeline will still be complying with the requirement to 
provide at least one intra-day nomination.
    However, in some cases application of the principle will be more 
difficult. For example, Peoples/North Shore/Northern Illinois point to 
Nomination Standard 1.3.19, which states that ``overrun quantities 
should be requested in a separate nomination.'' They comment that the 
pipelines they use employ a superior procedure by permitting overrun 
nominations to be included as part of the regular nomination.
    In this case, permitting the change would appear to violate the 
underlying premise of standardization--that shippers can use the same 
procedures on all pipelines without having to know the individual 
proclivities and rules of each pipeline. Shippers may need to count on 
the standardized practice of submitting overrun nominations as a 
separate nomination, without having to determine whether different 
overrun procedures apply on different pipelines. In some instances, 
rather than simply changing a standard, pipelines may be able to offer 
an additional option to shippers, provided that those shippers that 
want to conduct business according to the standards can still do so.
    The general principle is that a pipeline's enhancement to the 
standards is acceptable when the revision provides increased 
flexibility, but does not affect shippers' ability to utilize the 
standard procedure or adversely affect the rights of those not a party 
to the revision. Some of these issues may have to be resolved when 
pipelines make their compliance filings and shippers file comments on 
the filings. In making their compliance filings, pipelines, therefore, 
must specifically note in their statement of the nature, reasons, and 
basis all proposed changes that purport to exceed the standards so that 
shippers can comment on these changes. The Commission also notes that, 
under GISB's procedures, any person may seek an interpretation of a 
standard, and receive a response within 90 days of the 
submittal.39 The use of this procedure to obtain clarification of 
issues (that can be anticipated based on the filings here or at GISB) 
could prove useful when the Commission considers the compliance filings 
to implement the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ GISB Procedures for Adopting Standards, Sec. 5.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission will not revise the regulation, as suggested by 
Southern, to read ``meet or exceed,'' rather than ``comply,'' because, 
even if pipelines

[[Page 39063]]

may exceed the standards in certain circumstances, they must still 
comply with the standards. As pointed out earlier, a pipeline 
permitting more than one intra-day nomination will be complying with 
the standard for providing at least one such nomination. Moreover, as 
discussed above, pipelines cannot exceed the standards by adopting what 
they consider a superior methodology if adherence to the GISB standard 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
is necessary to ensure uniform procedures across the pipeline grid.
2. Clarification of Other Issues
    In the NOPR, the Commission stated that it expected pipelines to 
implement these standards as broadly as possible to provide customers 
with the services needed in an integrated market. The Commission 
reasoned that many of the clarification requests could be resolved 
through consultations between the pipelines and their shippers, and, if 
they were not, the Commission could address them when pipelines file 
revised tariffs to incorporate the standards or through the complaint 
process.
    National Fuel supports the Commission's position in the NOPR that 
implementation details should be worked out in individual proceedings. 
Other commenters, however, request clarification of a number of 
standards. While not exhaustive, the following provides an example of 
the clarification requests. Several commenters seek clarification of 
the standard requiring pipelines to provide intra-day nominations, such 
as clarifying intra-day bumping rights (as mentioned previously), the 
pipelines' ability to establish set times for intra-day nominations, 
\40\ and whether intra-day nominations should apply to all 
services.\41\ NWIGU, however, maintains that the manner in which intra-
day nominations are implemented should be determined on a pipeline 
specific basis. Other commenters request clarification of issues 
relating to specific pipelines or services, such as scheduling priority 
for late nominations if the particular service provides for priority 
nomination rights or how to deal with Florida Gas Transmission 
Company's receipt and delivery gas days.\42\ Still others request 
clarification of terms, such as National Fuel Distribution's concern 
that ``mutual mistake of fact'' in Flowing Gas Standard 2.3.26 could be 
so broad as to cover all billing mistakes \43\ or Viking's request for 
clarification of the term ``quick response'' in Nomination Standard 
1.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See the comment of Tenneco Energy.
    \41\ See the comments of ECT and Peoples/North Shore/Northern 
Illinois.
    \42\ See the comments of Peoples/North Shore/Northern Illinois 
and Peoples Gas.
    \43\ Flowing Gas Standard 2.3.26 provides for a 6 month period 
to resolve allocation disputes unless a mutual mistake of fact is 
involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission stated in the NOPR, clarification issues involve 
issues specific to certain pipelines, and thus are not susceptible to 
generic resolution. Similarly, terms used in standards need to be 
defined with reference to specific situations, using standard rules of 
interpretation, such as common usage, and the principles and intent of 
the standards.44 These issues are best addressed when pipelines 
make their compliance filings in light of the comments made on those 
filings. By the time pipelines make their compliance filings, 
additional clarification on some of these issues, such as intra-day 
nominations, also may be provided through the September 30, 1996 
filings. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, none of these standards are 
immutable. Trial and error may reveal the need for further 
standardization in some areas and perhaps less in others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Mutual mistake of fact is a common expression used in 
contract law where both parties have a mutual misunderstanding of a 
basic assumption of the contract. Thus, all that Flowing Gas 
Standard 2.3.26 provides is that the time periods for dispute 
resolution will not apply where the parties are seeking to resolve a 
problem that both misunderstood at the time. The term ``quick 
response'' refers to the immediate response of errors in 
nominations. See Nomination Standard 1.4.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CIG/ANR request clarification of what the Commission intends by the 
consultive process. They argue that implementation of these standards 
is essentially ministerial and that extensive consultation could lead 
to further redefinition of the standards.
    Implementation of many of the standards is likely to be the purely 
ministerial task CIG/ANR envisages. There may be some issues, however, 
where shippers are concerned about the method of implementation. 
Accordingly, pipelines should circulate advance copies of their 
proposed compliance filings among shippers for comments to help iron 
out the implementation details before filing with the Commission.
    When individual trading parties have agreed to changes in the 
electronic data requirements, GISB's definition 1.2.22 requires parties 
to present mutually agreeable data elements to GISB for technical 
implementation.\45\ Peoples/North Shore/Northern Illinois object to 
this definition, because they are concerned about the possible delay 
this requirement may introduce. ECT, on the other hand, supports the 
standard, arguing that unless data elements required to implement 
service revisions are mapped to GISB's ASC X12 formats, individual 
pipeline-by-pipeline interpretation of where the data should be placed 
would defeat the goal of standardization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ To ensure that changes to data elements do not undermine 
the goal of providing standardized communication across pipelines, 
Standard 1.2.2 provides that other shippers cannot be required to 
adopt any additional data elements in order to achieve a desired 
level of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GISB requirement that the pipelines inform GISB of any data 
element changes is reasonable since it ensures that a standard 
industry-wide dataset is readily available. The Commission fully 
expects GISB to process such filings as quickly as possible.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Commission approval of the data elements appears 
unnecessary because they involve only agreements between individual 
trading partners and will not affect other shippers' use of the 
standards. If the change involves the substance of the standards or 
pipelines' obligations to other shippers, then Commission acceptance 
would be necessary prior to implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Requests for Waivers

    Some commenters support the granting of waivers based on individual 
circumstances if the waivers would not unreasonably interfere with gas 
flow across the pipeline grid.\47\ NGSA and COPAS argue that waivers 
should be granted sparingly because all the standards are interrelated 
and waivers take away the certainty that standards are designed to 
promote. Williston Basin requests waivers of some of the GISB 
requirements. It claims that it should not have to comply with the EDM 
requirements because only two third-parties on its system now use 
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) to download capacity release 
information.\48\ It also is concerned that meeting GISB's invoicing 
timetable would be too onerous because of its remote meter locations. 
El Paso contends that it (and GISB) should not have to implement a new 
dataset to permit uploads of pre-arranged deals for full requirements 
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See the comments of NGT/MRT, Montana-Dakota, CNG, and 
National Fuel.
    \48\ EDI generally refers to the exchange of information between 
computers using telephone lines and standardized file formats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission, as a general matter, finds that waivers are at odds 
with the goal of adopting uniform procedures in order to achieve the 
greatest efficiency in transporting gas across the integrated pipeline 
grid. Thus, waivers will not be favored. However, the Commission will 
consider waiver requests on a case-by-case basis.
    Although the Commission previously granted waivers of the EDI 
requirement to some small pipelines, the prior requirements cover only 
capacity release, which may have been

[[Page 39064]]

insignificant on these pipelines. In contrast, these standards cover 
the entire gamut of ongoing business transactions with the pipeline. 
Thus, a previous lack of interest in EDI for capacity release does not 
necessarily suggest a similar lack of interest in these standards.
    Even for small pipelines, making what is essentially a one-time 
investment to adopt a standardized industry-wide technology seems 
preferable to continued investment in EBB or other non-standard 
communication technologies. The Commission also would expect that 
third-party vendors that will be creating formats for customers to 
transact business with pipelines can, at reasonable cost, use or modify 
the formats to enable pipelines to transact business with customers. 
Thus, before granting waivers of the electronic communication 
standards, the Commission will expect pipelines to provide full, and 
accurate documentation of the costs of implementing such standards on 
their systems. At this point, El Paso has not demonstrated why 
implementation of uploads for pre-arranged deals for its full 
requirements customers would be so onerous, since it already provides 
for downloads of such information and will be providing for uploads of 
other information.

F. Capacity Release

    The GISB standards address procedures for implementing releases of 
capacity and the electronic methods of communicating capacity release 
information. The standards will require some modification of the 
mechanics of the pipelines' capacity release procedures. The principal 
change, at least for some pipelines, will be the standardized timeframe 
for processing release transactions. Under this schedule, for instance, 
pipelines must establish procedures to process pre-arranged deals, not 
subject to bidding, within one hour of receipt so that the replacement 
shipper can nominate the same day. For deals subject to bidding, the 
pipelines must process the transactions within one day. The 
communication standards require pipelines to process file uploads of 
pre-arranged deals, which will permit shippers and third-party capacity 
trading service providers to conclude pre-arranged deals and 
efficiently transmit the results of the deals to the pipeline, without 
having to use the pipelines' EBBs as is the current practice.
    While most commenters find the GISB changes to be beneficial, a 
number comment that they do not obviate the need for changes in 
fundamental capacity release policies, such as the requirement for 
bidding on deals longer than 31 days and the prohibition on releases 
above the pipeline's maximum rate. Proliance and BGE also find the GISB 
standards an improvement over past practice, but they believe pipeline 
interruptible service has a competitive advantage over capacity release 
because the standards fail to provide comparability between the 
procedures for obtaining released capacity and those for obtaining 
pipeline interruptible capacity.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Proliance points to differences between capacity release 
and interruptible procedures in posting, bidding, creditworthiness, 
EBB and contract procedures, scheduling, and nominations. BGE points 
out that interruptible nominations are made on the same day as 
acquisition of capacity as compared with up to a two-day delay under 
GISB standards when bidding is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two pipelines, CIG/ANR and CNG, suggest that the Commission not 
require pipelines to redesign their capacity release programs until 
after the Commission issues its promised NOPR on capacity release.\50\ 
CNG is particularly concerned about having to make investment in 
redesign of its electronic systems if the Commission is going to make 
further changes to the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Trunkline Gas Company, 75 FERC para. 61,064, at 61,213 
(1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not want to change the industry's consensus 
standards until the industry has a further opportunity for 
consideration and comment through GISB's continuing process or any NOPR 
on capacity release. On the other hand, the Commission finds no reason 
for not implementing the standards at this point.
    The procedural changes involve mostly revisions to tariff 
procedures, which should not involve significant burdens. The 
requirement for pipelines to speed-up the processing of capacity 
release transactions is consistent with the Commission's goal of 
ensuring comparability between capacity release and pipeline short-term 
services.
    The only change in electronic communication is the requirement to 
process uploads of pre-arranged deals; all of the other standards for 
electronic communication of capacity release information have been in 
place for some time. Adding uploads of pre-arranged deals should not 
impose significant additional burden or expense, since pipelines 
already will be implementing upload capability for the other GISB 
standards. The ability to upload pre-arranged deals already has been 
delayed, and the Commission does not want to introduce any further 
delay, because such a capability is crucial for shippers and third-
party capacity trading service providers to communicate efficiently 
with the pipelines. Moreover, the Commission is convinced that whatever 
changes the Commission may make in the fundamental policies of the 
capacity release program, the pipelines will have to provide the 
capability for shippers and third-party capacity trading services to 
efficiently transmit pre-arranged transactions to the pipelines.
    In the NOPR, the Commission asked whether Capacity Release Standard 
5.3.11 required pipelines to accept electronic file uploads of 
replacement shippers' or their agents' confirmation of the terms of 
pre-arranged deals (on those pipelines that require confirmation). The 
Commission was concerned that the efficiency created by requiring 
standardized uploads of pre-arranged deals would be lost if shippers or 
third-party capacity trading services cannot use electronic uploads of 
confirmations to confirm their deals.
    GISB, El Paso, and Tenneco Energy confirm that the intent of 
Capacity Release Standard 5.3.11 is for transportation service 
providers to accept and process pre-arranged deal confirmations using 
EBBs, file uploads, as well as other electronic means to which the 
parties mutually agree. They point out that the Capacity Release 
Standards include datasets requiring pipelines to provide for uploads 
of confirmations as a mandatory business conditional field,\51\ which 
means that pipelines requiring confirmation must support such 
uploads.\52\ Tenneco Energy, however, raises questions about the 
conditions under which agents can confirm. It suggests that any such 
requirement be deferred until completion of the work of GISB's 
Contracts Task Force. Peoples/North Shore/Northern Illinois opposes a 
requirement for pipelines to support uploads of confirmations unless 
the costs exceed the benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Capacity Release Datasets 5.4.12, and 5.4.19.
    \52\ See Nomination Standard 1.2.2 for the definition of 
mandatory and business conditional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission supports the requirement for pipelines to accept 
uploads of confirmations, because such uploads improve the efficiency 
of the process by allowing shippers and third-party capacity trading 
service providers to conclude pre-arranged deals without having to use 
the pipeline EBBs to transmit such deals to the pipeline. With respect 
to Tenneco Energy's comment, GISB has adopted a principle

[[Page 39065]]

that agents must be recognized in conducting electronic 
communication.\53\ This principle is particularly important in the 
capacity release arena because the only way that third-party capacity 
trading service providers can effectively provide trading services is 
if they can communicate the results of such transactions to the 
pipelines on behalf of their clients. Thus, the Commission expects 
pipelines to recognize agents for the purpose of submitting pre-
arranged deals and confirmations of such deals as well as for other 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Electronic Delivery Mechanism Principle 4.1.7. The capacity 
release datasets also contain a field entitled authorization code, 
which informs the receiver of a transaction that the sender is 
authorized to submit the transaction for the contractual party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Electronic Delivery Mechanism

    GISB's standards specify that Internet protocols (TCP/IP with a PPP 
connection) should be used for electronic communication. In the NOPR, 
the Commission requested comment on whether additional standards for 
Internet connection are needed, such as the use of file transfer 
protocols (FTP).
    In its comments, GISB explains that, although it has determined to 
use Internet protocols for communication, it has not yet reached a 
final determination on whether the public Internet provides sufficient 
security for business transactions or whether private networks should 
be the communication vehicle. On June 7, 1996, GISB's Future Technology 
Task Force issued an interim report recommending the use of the public 
Internet as the communication vehicle. The report finds that security 
issues with the use of the public Internet can be satisfactorily 
resolved through commercially available software. However, the Future 
Technology Task Force has established a pilot test (to be completed by 
September 30, 1996) to permit a full examination of the technology. If 
the public Internet ultimately is not chosen, GISB states whatever 
communication vehicle (intranets/networks) is chosen would support its 
standard protocol of TCP/IP with a PPP connection.
    AGA and CIG/ANR suggest that the Commission not prejudge the 
adoption of the public Internet as the communication vehicle, but wait 
for the recommendation by the Future Technology Task Force. BGE and EMA 
support the use of the public Internet, while ECT, National Fuel 
Distribution, and Peoples/North Shore/Northern Illinois are concerned 
about the security of using the public Internet and support the use of 
private intranets. NYMEX/Enersoft and WINGS request clarification that 
the Commission is not adopting the public Internet as the exclusive 
means of communication and that third-parties can offer products which 
are not on the public Internet.
    The Commission will reserve final judgment on the use of the public 
Internet until the final report by the Future Technology Task Force. 
The Commission is not entirely clear as to the concerns expressed by 
NYMEX/Enersoft and WINGS. All pipelines will have to provide data 
according to the protocol (whether public Internet, intranet, or other 
protocol) that is specified. Whatever protocol is adopted for pipelines 
should not affect the manner in which third-parties use or transmit 
that data to their customers. A third-party would be entirely free to 
establish its own private intranet to communicate data with its 
customers.
    NYMEX/Enersoft and WINGS may be asking whether pipelines can agree 
to provide information to shippers or third-party computer service 
providers according to protocols that differ from the chosen one (e.g., 
providing a direct connection to the third-party). In the OASIS 
rulemaking, the Commission required the utilities to provide direct 
connection on an equal basis to all those requesting such a connection 
as long as the utility is compensated for making, and given sufficient 
time to make, the connection.54 The Commission found that 
providing direct connections would assist private networks and third-
party services in offering additional valuable services to the 
industry. The Commission anticipates following the same course here 
when it adopts the final communication standards.55
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ III FERC Stats. and Regs. Preambles para. 31,035, at 
31,618-19.
    \55\ The Commission also anticipates that pipelines should 
design tariff procedures to ensure that the first party seeking a 
direct connection is not disadvantaged (relative to latercomers) by 
having to bear the costs of establishing the connection. Thus, 
pipelines should consider procedures to reimburse the first 
applicant, and charge subsequent applicants, for the fixed common 
costs of establishing the direct connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NGC/Conoco/Vastar recommend that all electronic information 
disseminated by pipelines should be done on the public Internet. They 
further contend that pipelines should no longer be required to provide 
information on EBBs, nor should they be able to provide preferred 
connections to their EBBs. If pipelines want to continue to provide 
services on an EBB, NGC/Conoco/Vastar suggest that EBB service should 
not be subsidized by having its costs recovered as part of rate base, 
but should compete on an equal footing with other ventures using the 
pipeline information.
    The Commission agrees the goal of the industry should be to replace 
the individual pipeline EBBs, characterized by their unique log-on and 
access procedures and distinctive look and feel, with a uniform method 
of communicating all electronic information now provided on the EBBs. 
Standardization of electronic communication would permit shippers and 
third-party service providers to easily capture all relevant 
information and provide a single display format covering all pipelines.
    In the course of their deliberations on the future of electronic 
communication in the gas industry, GISB and the industry participants 
should give consideration to the following issues. First, they should 
consider whether the Commission should mandate that pipelines provide 
additional information in electronic format (other than that required 
by this rule or other Commission regulations).
    Second, they need to consider whether pipelines should be required 
to replace their EBBs with a standardized, interactive format (such as 
interactive, Internet world-wide-web displays). The display format 
would be in addition to providing for uploads and downloads in 
standardized file format.56 Alternatively, the pipelines could be 
pure data providers and recipients, with no requirement to provide 
individual display formats. This approach would leave the creation of 
display formats to the shippers and to competition among software 
vendors and third-party providers (that could include pipeline EBBs 
that would not be covered within the pipelines' cost-of-service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ In the OASIS rulemaking, the utilities were required to 
provide both for file downloads and uploads of data as well as 
providing the required information through internet HTML display 
formats. III FERC Stats. and Regs. Preambles para. 31,035, at 
31,616-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the industry needs to consider the concern raised by NGC/
Conoco/Vastar over connection standards, such as whether pipelines can 
provide for preferential connections either to their own EBBs or third-
parties (including pipeline affiliates). For example, if the standard 
requires pipelines to provide data over the public Internet and the 
pipeline uses a third-party to operate its Internet server, should 
pipelines be able to provide direct connections to their own in-house 
computer system as now occurs with the pipelines' EBBs? Or, should all 
direct connections be to the Internet server in order to provide

[[Page 39066]]

everyone with comparable access to the data.57
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The OASIS rule did not permit the utilities to provide 
preferential direct connections. See III FERC Stats. and Regs. 
Preambles para. 31,035, at 31,619 (direct connections to the 
utility's computer are not permitted when another party is 
responsible for the Internet connection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, GISB and the industry participants should explore making 
information available, on a real time basis, on the availability of 
capacity on the mainline and at individual receipt and delivery points. 
GISB has recognized that its nomination scheduling is an interim step 
to continuous and contiguous scheduling.58 Moreover, as discussed 
earlier, pipelines must now permit intra-day nominations, and the 
Commission expects pipelines to schedule capacity within reasonable 
business hours when they have available capacity. As the industry 
continues its move to more flexible intra-day nominations, such efforts 
must be accompanied by real-time information. Some of the needed 
information can be obtained through compliance with the existing 
Operationally Available and Unsubscribed Capacity datasets.59 As 
such, the Commission will continue taking steps to ensure compliance 
with the requirements of those data sets. However, improvements are 
needed. Current data is not available on a real time basis. It does not 
reflect capacity scheduled during the day. Moreover, information is not 
available on whether gas can be scheduled into or out of a particular 
zone. Finally, the information is often not delivered in a user 
friendly format. For instance, a person should be able to request 
information which changed after a specified date and time, i.e. the 
quantity of available capacity at individual locations which changed 
due to a newly scheduled quantity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Nomination Principle 1.1.2.
    \59\ Standards for Electronic Bulletin Boards Required Under 
Part 284 of the Commission's Regulations, Order No. 563, III FERC 
Stats. & Regs. Preambles, at 31,007; Order No. 563-A, III FERC 
Stats. & Regs. Preambles, at 31,040 (posting of operationally 
available capacity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Consideration of Additional Standards

    A number of commenters on GISB's March 15, 1996, filing argued that 
the GISB standards did not go far enough and that additional standards 
needed to be developed. While not meaning to provide a definitive list, 
the Commission distilled from the comments the following areas for 
consideration of modifications or additions to the standards: expansion 
of Internet protocols to include all electronic information provided by 
the pipelines (discussed above), 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. Because of the importance of the issues raised, the 
Commission requested detailed proposals for standards in these and 
other related areas by September 30, 1996.
    Several commenters argue that the areas listed are among the most 
contentious and most difficult to resolve and maintain that the 
September 30, 1996 date does not provide the industry or GISB with 
adequate time to develop consensus. NGC/Conoco/Vastar, however, 
maintain that precisely because these issues are complex and 
contentious, GISB will be unable to reach a reasonable consensus, so 
that the Commission should resolve the issues. The Commission also 
takes notice that, after the NOPR, GISB has established a schedule 
leading to the development of standards (but not necessarily detailed 
datasets) by the September 30, 1996 date.
    The Commission does not share NGC/Conoco/Vastar's dire view of 
GISB's prospects for resolving these issues. But the Commission still 
needs to monitor the progress of these considerations, so that, if they 
do stalemate, the Commission can begin technical conferences or other 
proceedings to resolve them. Accordingly, the Commission will not 
revise the September 30, 1996 date for submission of standards 
proposals. By September 30, 1996, the Commission expects that standards 
for many of these issues will be developed and that, for other issues, 
the filings will permit the Commission to assess whether GISB is on 
track to resolve them or whether the Commission needs to establish 
additional procedures. For issues that are not resolved, the reports 
should be sufficiently comprehensive that they fully describe the 
problems faced by the industry, the proposals being considered, whether 
any proposal is preferred over others, and an analysis of the benefits 
and disadvantages of the proposed solutions.

I. Cost Recovery

    Viking and Iroquois request the Commission to establish a method of 
recovering the costs of implementing the standards. Viking maintains 
that a full section 4 case is not an appropriate mechanism because of 
the difficulty in predicting up-front and ongoing compliance costs 
needed to prepare a test-year cost-of-service study. Both Iroquois and 
Viking suggest using limited section 4 cases, and Viking also suggests 
other options, such as deferred accounting, similar to procedures used 
for the recovery of costs related to implementation of FASB 106 (post-
employment benefits other than pensions).
    The Commission finds no need to establish special procedures for 
handling cost recovery. There is no evidence that the costs of 
compliance are so significant or so out-of-the ordinary that special 
procedures are necessary. Moreover, implementation of many of the 
standards may result in changes to operations and maintenance expenses 
or other cost-of-service categories, which can be effectively 
considered only in the context of a full section 4 proceeding. With 
respect to Viking's concern about predicting future costs, Commission 
regulations permit pipelines to include in rate filings costs that are 
known and measurable at the time of the filing.60
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 18 CFR 154.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Implementation Schedule

    GISB proposes a staggered schedule for pipeline compliance filings 
and implementation in which pipelines are divided into three groups. 
The first group would make tariff filings October 1, 1996 and implement 
the standards April 1, 1997 with the other two groups filing in 
November and December 1996 and implementing in May and June 1997. The 
pipeline groupings are based on three factors: pipeline willingness to 
implement in the first groups; implementation by downstream pipelines 
no earlier than their major feeder pipelines; and geographic balance 
with each group including pipelines from various regions of the 
country. GISB did not include deadlines for small pipelines, stating 
that they could choose their implementation date.
    GISB also explains that the standards will govern business 
beginning with the implementation date. For example, in order to have 
gas scheduled to flow at the beginning of the gas day on April 1, 1997, 
the pipeline actually would begin implementing the related standards, 
such as Nomination Standard 1.3.2 (Nomination Timeline) in March 1997. 
Likewise, for pipelines with an April 1, 1997 implementation date, the 
invoices for April deliveries would be prepared and sent to the 
customer in May 1997 in compliance with the standards.
    The Commission is accepting the GISB schedule for the pro forma 
compliance filings and the

[[Page 39067]]

implementation of the standards as set forth below. Smaller pipelines 
are included in the third group, but any pipeline may file or implement 
earlier than its effective date. The Commission is providing that 
interventions, protests, or comments are due 21 days after the date of 
the pipeline's pro forma tariff filing.

Pro Forma Tariff Filing Date: October 1, 1996--Standards Implementation 
Date: April 1, 1997

Algonquin Gas Transmission Company
El Paso Natural Gas Company
Florida Gas Transmission Company
Mojave Pipeline Company
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
Northern Border Pipeline Company
Northern Natural Gas Company
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company
Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation
Transwestern Pipeline Company
Trunkline Gas Company

Pro Forma Tariff Filing Date: November 1, 1996--Standards 
Implementation Date: May 1, 1997

Canyon Creek Compression Company
Colorado Interstate Gas Company
East Tennessee Natural Gas Company
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company
Mississippi River Transmission Corporation
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
NorAm Gas Transmission Company
Stingray Pipeline Company
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
Trailblazer Pipeline Company
Williams Natural Gas Company
Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.

Pro Forma Tariff Filing Date: December 2, 1996--Standards 
Implementation Date: June 1, 1997

Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Company
Algonquin LNG, Inc.
ANR Pipeline Company
ANR Storage Company
Black Marlin Pipeline Company
Blue Lake Gas Storage Company
Caprock Pipeline Company
Carnegie Interstate Pipeline Company
Chandeleur Pipe Line Company
CNG Transmission Corporation
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation
Columbia Gulf Transmission Company
Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership
Crossroads Pipeline Company
Equitrans, Inc.
Gas Transport Inc.
Gasdel Pipeline System, Inc.
Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership
Gulf States Transmission Corporation
High Island Offshore System
Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
K N Interstate Gas Transmission Co.
K N Wattenberg Transmission Limited Liability Company
Kentucky-West Virginia Gas Company
Kern River Gas Transmission Company
Koch Gateway Pipeline Company
Louisiana-Nevada Transit Company
Michigan Gas Storage Company
Mid Louisiana Gas Company
MIGC, Inc.
Mobile Bay Pipeline Company
Nora Transmission Company
Northwest Pipeline Corporation
Oktex Pipeline Company
Overthrust Pipeline Company
Ozark Gas Transmission System
Pacific Gas Transmission System
Pacific Interstate Offshore Company
Paiute Pipeline Company
Petal Gas Storage Company
Questar Pipeline Company
Richfield Gas Storage System
Riverside Pipeline Company, L.P.
Sabine Pipe Line Company
Sea Robin Pipeline Company
South Georgia Natural Gas Company
Southern Natural Gas Company
T C P Gathering Co.
Tarpon Transmission Company
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation
Texas-Ohio Pipeline, Inc.
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company
U-T Offshore System
Viking Gas Transmission Company
Western Gas Interstate Company
Western Transmission Corporation
Westgas Interstate, Inc.
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company
Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 61 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. 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.62 The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these 
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment.63 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.64 Therefore, an environmental assessment is 
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 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).
    \63\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \64\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Information Collection Statement

    In the NOPR, the Commission requested emergency Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) clearance procedures under 5 CFR 1320.13 of 
OMB's regulations to avoid delays beyond the proposed January 1, 1997, 
target implementation date. Virtually all of the comments filed 
(including those filed with OMB by Viking) express concern about the 
Commission's target implementation date of January 1, 1997, due to 
concerns about complications arising during the peak winter heating 
season. GISB, with support from almost all commenters, has proposed, 
and the Commission is adopting, a staggered implementation of the 
standards during the spring of 1997.
    OMB's regulations in 5 CFR 1320.11 require that it approve certain 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements (collections of information) 
imposed by an agency. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB 
shall assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents 
subject to the filing requirements of this Rule shall not be penalized 
for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the 
collections of information display valid OMB control numbers.

Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-formal)
Action: Data Collection/Requirements
OMB Control No.: 1902-0154
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: 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/startup new business 
procedures (First year)
Necessity of Information: The final rule adopts standards incorporated 
by reference and submitted by the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB).

[[Page 39068]]

These standards 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. Without the 
Commission's adoption of these standards that institute common business 
practices and a common language for communication, the speed and 
efficiency with which shippers can transact business across multiple 
pipelines would be severely compromised. Under the final rule, all 
pipelines will 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 
regardless of the pipelines with which they deal. In addition, all 
pipelines will ultimately support a standard Internet connection for 
communications with their customers, which will eliminate the disparity 
in log-on procedures and user interfaces faced by customers using the 
individual pipeline electronic bulletin boards.

    The information collection requirements in this final rule will be 
reported directly to the industry users and later be subject to audit 
by the Commission. The implementation of these 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 under Order No. 636 and the restructuring of the 
natural gas industry. The Commission's Office of Pipeline Regulation 
will use 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.
    Because the subject final rule is not significantly different from 
the NOPR, and OMB has not provided any comments on the proposed rule, 
the Commission is submitting a copy of this final rule to OMB for 
informational purposes only. 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].

IX. Effective Date

    These regulations are effective August 26, 1996. The Commission has 
determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 26, 1996.

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 the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends 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 
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;

[[Page 39069]]

    (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) 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:
    (i) Nominations Related Standards (Version 1.0, June 14, 1996);
    (ii) Flowing Gas Related Standards (Version 1.0, June 14, 1996);
    (iii) Invoice Related Standards (Version 1.0, June 14, 1996); and
    (iv) Capacity Release Related Standards (Version 1.0, June 14, 
1996).
    (2) This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 
51. Copies of these standards may be obtained from the Gas Industry 
Standards Board, 1100 Louisiana, Suite 4925, Houston, TX 77002. Copies 
may be inspected at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public 
Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426 and at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 
North Capitol St., NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.

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

Appendix--RM96-1-000

                             Comments Filed                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Commenter                           Abbreviation         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Company..  Alabama-Tennessee.             
American Forest & Paper Association....  AF&PA.                         
American Gas Association...............  AGA.                           
American Public Gas Association........  APGA.                          
Associated Gas Distributors............  AGD.                           
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.....  BGE.                           
Brooklyn Union Gas Company.............  Brooklyn Union.                
Central Illinois Light Company.........  CILCO.                         
CNG Transmission Corporation...........  CNG.                           
Coastal Gas Marketing Company..........  CGM.                           
Colorado Interstate Gas Company and ANR  CIG/ANR.                       
 Pipeline Company.                                                      
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation    Columbia Gas/Columbia Gulf.    
 and Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.                                
Council of Petroleum Accountants         COPAS.                         
 Society.                                                               
El Paso Natural Gas Company............  El Paso.                       
Energy Managers Association............  EMA.                           
Enron Capital & Trade Resources          ECT.                           
 Corporation..                                                          
Equitrans, L.P.........................  Equitrans.                     
Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd...............  Foothills.                     
Gas Industry Standards Board...........  GISB.                          
Illinois Power Company.................  Illinois Power.                
Interstate Natural Gas Association of    INGAA.                         
 America..                                                              
Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P..  Iroquois.                      
Montana-Dakota Utilities Company.......  Montana-Dakota.                
National Fuel Gas Distribution           National Fuel Distribution.    
 Corporation.                                                           
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation...  National Fuel.                 
Natural Gas Clearinghouse, Conoco, Inc.  NGC/Conoco/Vastar.             
 and Vastar Gas Marketing, Inc.                                         
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America  Natural.                       
Natural Gas Supply Association.........  NGSA.                          
NorAm Energy Services, Inc.............  NES.                           
NorAm Gas Transmission Company and       NGT/MRT.                       
 Mississippi River Transmission                                         
 Corporation.                                                           
Northern Distributor Group and           NDG/Minnegasco.                
 Minnegasco.                                                            
Northwest Industrial Gas Users.........  NWIGU.                         
NYMEX Technology Corporation and         NYMEX/Enersoft.                
 Enersoft Corporation.                                                  
Pacific Gas and Electric Company.......  PG&E.                          
Pacific Gas Transmission Company.......  PGT.                           
PanEnergy Corporation (Texas Eastern     PanEnergy Companies.           
 Transmission Corporation, Panhandle                                    
 Eastern Pipe Line Company, Trunkline                                   
 Gas Company, Algonquin Gas                                             
 Transmission Company).                                                 
Peoples Gas System, Inc................  Peoples Gas.                   
Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc......  Piedmont.                      
ProLiance Energy LLC...................  ProLiance.                     
Questar Pipeline Company...............  Questar.                       
Southern California Edison Company.....  Edison.                        
Southern California Gas Company........  SoCalGas.                      
Southern Natural Gas Company...........  Southern.                      
Tenneco Energy.........................  Tenneco Energy.                

[[Page 39070]]

                                                                        
The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company,  Peoples/North Shore/Northern   
 North Shore Gas Company, and Northern    Illinois.                     
 Illinois Gas Company.                                                  
TransCapacity Limited Partnership......  TransCapacity.                 
United Distribution Companies..........  UDC.                           
Viking Gas Transmission Company........  Viking.                        
Williams Interstate Natural Gas System.  WINGS.                         
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline      Williston Basin.               
 Company.                                                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[FR Doc. 96-18623 Filed 7-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P