[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26572-26621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11247]



[[Page 26571]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Energy





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Energy Regulatory Commission



_______________________________________________________________________



18 CFR Part 2 et al.



Revision of Existing Regulations Governing the Filing of Applications 
for the Construction and Operation of Facilities To Provide Service or 
To Abandon Facilities or Service Under Section 7 of the Natural Gas 
Act; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 1999 / Rules and 
Regulations  

[[Page 26572]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 2, 153, 157, 284, 375, 380, and 385

[Docket No. RM98-9-000; Order No. 603]


Revision of Existing Regulations Governing the Filing of 
Applications for the Construction and Operation of Facilities To 
Provide Service or To Abandon Facilities or Service Under Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act

April 29, 1999.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is amending the 
regulations codifying the Commission's responsibilities under the 
Natural Gas Act and Executive Order 10485, as amended. The Commission 
is updating its regulations governing the filing of applications for 
the construction and operation of facilities to provide service or to 
abandon facilities or service under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. 
The changes are necessary to conform the Commission's regulations to 
the Commission's current policies.

DATES: These regulations become effective June 14, 1999.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael J. McGehee, Office of Pipeline Regulation, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 
(202) 208-2257.
Carolyn Van Der Jagt, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 
(202) 208-2246.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of 
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all 
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of 
this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room 
at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) provides access to 
the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission from November 
14, 1994, to the present. CIPS can be accessed via Internet through 
FERC's Home page (http://www.ferc.fed.us) using the CIPS Link or the 
Energy Information Online icon. Documents will be available on CIPS in 
ASCII and WordPerfect 6.1. User assistance is available at 202-208-2474 
or by E-mail to [email protected].
    This document is also available through the Commission's Records 
and Information Management System (RIMS), an electronic storage and 
retrieval system of documents submitted to and issued by the Commission 
after November 16, 1981. Documents from November 1995 to the present 
can be viewed and printed. RIMS is available in the Public Reference 
Room or remotely via Internet through FERC's Home page using the RIMS 
link or the Energy Information Online icon. User assistance is 
available at 202-208-2222, or by E-mail to [email protected].
    Finally, the complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, RVJ International, 
Inc. RVJ International, Inc. is located in the Public Reference Room at 
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

I. Introduction

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending 
its regulations governing the filing of applications for certificates 
of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and 
operation of facilities to provide service or to abandon facilities or 
service under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),1 and 
amending the blanket certificate under subpart F of part 157. The 
Commission has determined that portions of its regulations need to be 
revised and/or eliminated in order to reflect the current regulatory 
environment of unbundled pipeline sales and open-access transportation 
of natural gas. The revisions would: (1) Bring the existing regulations 
up-to-date to match current policies; (2) eliminate ambiguities and 
obsolete language; (3) make the regulations more germane and less 
cumbersome; and (4) reduce the existing reporting burden by a total of 
8,284 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 717b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Commission is consolidating and clarifying its 
current practice concerning the reporting requirements needed for its 
environmental review of pipeline construction projects under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.2 Generally, the 
Commission's existing requirements for the environmental review process 
are outdated, located in several different parts of the Commission's 
regulations, or, in practice, have been replaced with a preferred 
format that is not in the Commission's regulations, but is now used 
routinely by jurisdictional companies. The new regulations will provide 
better guidance to the regulated industry concerning what particular 
information the Commission needs to conduct a timely environmental 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    Since the enactment of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) 
3 and the Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act of 1989 
(Decontrol Act),4 the natural gas industry has undergone 
significant changes. Historically, the Commission regulated natural gas 
producers and wellhead prices and interstate pipelines served as gas 
merchants. Pipelines now generally provide only open-access 
transportation services and the Commission no longer regulates 
producers and wellhead prices. The Commission implemented these changes 
through its rulemaking process 5 and through issuing policy 
statements.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432 (1978).
    \4\ Pub. L. 101-60, 103 Stat. 157 (1989).
    \5\ See Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial 
Wellhead Decontrol, Order No. 436, 50 FR 42408 (November 5, 1985) 
FERC Stats. and Regs. para. 30,665 (October 9, 1985)(Order No. 436 
instituted open-access, non-discriminatory transportation to permit 
downstream gas users to buy gas directly in the production area and 
to ship that gas via interstate pipelines); Order Implementing the 
Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act of 1989, Order No. 523, 55 FR 
17425 (April 25, 1990) FERC Stats. and Regs. para. 30,887 (April 18, 
1990) and Removal of Outdated Regulations Pertaining to the Sales of 
Natural Gas Production, Order No. 567, 59 FR 40240 (August 8, 1994) 
FERC Stats. and Regs. para. 30,999 (July 28, 1994)(in Order Nos. 523 
and 567, the Commission generally amended its regulations to delete 
those pertaining to its jurisdiction over the sale of natural gas 
production); and Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to 
Regulations Governing Self-Implementing Transportation; and 
Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial Wellhead 
Decontrol, Order No. 636, 57 FR 13267 (April 16, 1992) FERC Stats. 
and Regs. para. 30,939 (April 8, 1992)(in Order No. 636, the 
Commission adopted regulatory changes to finally complete the 
evolution to competition in the natural gas industry by mandating 
the unbundling of interstate natural gas sales service from 
transportation service, requiring that those services be sold 
separately to natural gas purchasers).
    \6\ Pricing Policy For New and Existing Facilities Constructed 
by Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 71 FERC para. 61,241 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 1998, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NOPR),7 proposing to amend the Commission's 
regulations to conform them to its existing policies and procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Revisions of Existing Regulations Under Part 157 and Related 
Sections of the Commission's Regulations Under the Natural Gas Act, 
63 FR 55683 (October 16, 1998), IV FERC Stats. and Regs. para. 
32,535 (September 30, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Final Rule serves four basic purposes. First, it will remove 
certain

[[Page 26573]]

regulations that are outdated and obsolete including, among other 
things, regulations that pertain to producer related activities made 
obsolete by the Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act of 1989 and 
regulations that pertain to a pipeline's merchant function. 
Additionally, it will remove various regulations that pertain to 
certain activities that were performed under the blanket certificate 
issued in subpart F of part 157 that are now performed under part 284 
of the Commission's regulations. The Final Rule will also remove 
certain outdated and/or unnecessary filing requirements and reports.
    Second, the Final Rule clarifies and updates certain aspects of the 
regulations, for example Secs. 2.55, 157.10 and 157.202, to conform 
them to the Commission's present policies. Third, it modifies certain 
existing regulations to aid in expediting the Commission's procedures 
for constructing certain facilities. Finally, the Final Rule replaces 
certain outdated environmental filing procedures with commonly followed 
industry practice.
    In essence, the Final Rule makes numerous changes to the 
Commission's regulations in an effort to streamline the certificate 
process. First, it requires that pipelines file more complete 
applications by including the information described in the checklist in 
appendix A to part 380. The checklist specifies the minimum content of 
an acceptable environmental report. This information is important for a 
pipeline to include when it files an application because it ensures 
that the staff has the minimum environmental information necessary to 
begin its review. Since the environmental review is generally the most 
time consuming part of the certificate process, it is critical for 
pipelines to follow the checklist in appendix A to part 380. A pipeline 
can avoid rejection or unnecessary delays associated with requests for 
additional information by including the minimum checklist information 
in its initial application.
    The Final Rule also incorporates a number of changes from the 
proposals in the NOPR in response to the comments filed. The following 
list details some of the changes in the final rule:

--Section 2.55(a) now recognizes that facilities installed along with 
new transmission facilities will qualify as auxiliary, as long as 
pipelines provide the Commission with a description of the auxiliary 
facilities at least 30 days in advance of their installation;
--Sections 153.21 and 157.8, now states that an application will be 
rejected if it ``patently fails to comply with applicable statutory 
requirements or with applicable Commission rules, regulations, and 
orders for which a waiver has not been granted,'' instead of if it 
``does not conform to the requirements of this part;''
--Section 157.10 allows pipelines five business days instead of two 
business days as proposed to provide voluminous or hard to reproduce 
materials to parties that request such information;
--Section 157.20 allows pipelines to notify the Commission of the 
reason that an end-user/shipper cannot flow gas within 10 days after 
the expiration of the time specified in the order, rather than 30 days 
before expiration of the date;
--Section 157.202(b)(2)(i) now includes certain compression 
replacements, in addition to mainline, and lateral replacements in the 
definition of eligible facilities;
--Section 157.202(b)(6) now includes situations involving natural 
forces beyond the pipeline's control in the definition of miscellaneous 
rearrangement;
--Section 157.208(f)(2) allows pipelines to use the prior notice 
procedures to increase the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure of 
lateral lines that were originally certificated under both case-
specific section 7(c) certificates and the Part 157 blanket 
certificate;
--Section 157.215 clarifies that injection, withdrawal and observation 
wells can be drilled for reservoir testing purposes; and
--Section 157.217 now clarifies that pipelines are able to switch 
customers from individually certificated section 7(c) transportation 
rate schedules to part 284 blanket certificate transportation rate 
schedules.

    Additionally at the request of commenters, the Final Rule: (1) 
Provides more guidance on the Director of the Office of Pipeline 
Regulation's (OPR) ability to dismiss unsubstantiated protests to prior 
notice application; (2) clarifies that the environmental compliance in 
Sec. 157.206(b) only applies to activities involving ground disturbance 
or changes to operational air and noise emissions; (3) reduces the 
reporting requirements contained in Sec. 157.208(e); and (4) codifies 
the Commission's policy that prohibits pipelines from segmenting 
projects under their blanket certificates to meet the Commission's 
spending limits.
    These changes will help clarify the regulations, bring them up to 
date and speed up the processing of pipeline construction and 
abandonment applications.

III. Discussion

A. Part 2--General Policy and Interpretations

    Part 2 contains the Commission's statements of general policy and 
interpretations regarding the NGA, National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 and Executive Orders 
11615 and 11627, the NGPA and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies 
Act of 1978.
Section 2.55--Definition of Terms Used in NGA Section 7(c)
Section 2.55(a)--Auxiliary Facilities Constructed With Newly Proposed 
Jurisdictional Facilities
    Section 2.55 defines facilities that are excluded from the 
requirements of section 7(c) of the NGA and may, therefore, be 
constructed without additional certificate authority. Section 2.55(a) 
exempts auxiliary facilities, such as valves, drips, yard and station 
piping, and cathodic protection equipment, from NGA section 7(c) 
authority. The NOPR clarified that auxiliary facilities intended to be 
installed at the same time and related to newly proposed jurisdictional 
facilities do not qualify for the exemption under Sec. 2.55(a) since 
the exemption is limited to installations which are designed 
specifically to improve the operation of an existing transmission 
system.
    Comments: El Paso Energy Corporation (El Paso) 8 states 
that the proposal creates arbitrary distinctions among facilities and 
would unduly restrict pipeline operations. El Paso contends that 
identical facilities would be considered jurisdictional or 
nonjurisdictional based solely upon when they were constructed. This 
would subject new jurisdictional yard and station piping to abandonment 
authorization, while identical existing facilities would need no such 
authorization. According to El Paso, Enron Interstate Pipelines (Enron) 
9 and Koch Gateway Pipeline Company (Koch Gateway), such a 
finding would increase the burden on pipelines by requiring them to 
keep records of all such facilities in order to abandon the 
jurisdictional ones when necessary. These parties believe that such 
facilities

[[Page 26574]]

should maintain their Sec. 2.55(a) nonjurisdictional status. They argue 
that any other finding would be inconsistent with the objective of 
making the regulations less cumbersome and unnecessarily increase the 
administrative burden on both the pipeline and the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ El Paso consists of El Paso Natural Gas Company, East 
Tennessee Natural Gas Company, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company, 
Mojave Pipeline Company, and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    \9\ Enron consists of Northern Natural Gas Company, Florida Gas 
Transmission Company and Black Marlin Pipeline Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    El Paso argues that the exemption in Sec. 2.55(a) should apply to 
all auxiliary-type facilities, whether installed in connection with new 
or existing transmission facilities. It requests that pipelines, at a 
minimum, should not be required to obtain section 7(b) authority to 
remove or replace any auxiliary-type facility installed in connection 
with new transmission facilities.
    Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) 
contends that auxiliary facilities associated with newly proposed 
facilities constructed under section 7(c) that do not cause ground 
disturbance should be exempt under Sec. 2.55(a).
    The Williams Companies (Williams) 10 suggests that the 
following clause be added to the end of Sec. 2.55(a):

    \10\ Williams consists of Kern River Gas Transmission Company, 
Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, 
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, and Williams Gas 
Pipelines Central, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Facilities constructed along with new transmission facilities do 
not qualify as auxiliary installations for the purposes of this 
section until such facilities and the related transmission 
facilities are complete and made available for service.

    Williams believes that this would clarify that after this type 
facility is in service, it qualifies as an ``auxiliary facility'' for 
purposes of future modifications or abandonments.
    Commission Response: As stated, the current Sec. 2.55(a) limits the 
installation of auxiliary facilities to facilities installed to an 
existing transmission system. The NOPR proposed to exclude any 
auxiliary-type facilities constructed in conjunction with new pipeline 
facilities from the NGA exemption in Sec. 2.55(a). As the commenters 
point out, this would establish dual classifications for similar 
facilities and would create uncertainty regarding the nonjurisdictional 
status of such facilities. Accordingly, in order to treat auxiliary 
facilities constructed in conjunction with new transmission facilities 
the same as auxiliary facilities constructed as part of an existing 
transmission system, the Commission will modify the definition of 
Sec. 2.55(a) to include facilities constructed in conjunction with new 
pipeline facilities.
    However, we are concerned that adding such facilities to the 
project after certification but before service begins, without notice 
or identification of such facilities, will not allow the Commission to 
environmental review all facilities related to a project proposed for 
construction under section 7(c) of the NGA. We will add wording to 
Secs. 2.55(a)(2) and 380.12(c)(2) to ensure that the Commission is 
aware of any facilities scheduled for installation on a newly 
certificated facility prior to it being put into service. We believe 
this is necessary because certain aboveground auxiliary facilities 
involve substantially different environmental impacts than a pipeline 
by itself. These impacts may be of great concern to affected 
landowners. Therefore, in order for the Commission to review all 
facilities related to a proposed construction project for new 
facilities, we will require that the pipelines include a description of 
the facilities in the environmental report required by 
Sec. 157.14(a)(6-a) of the Commission's regulations. For newly 
authorized facilities not yet in service, we will require that the 
pipeline notify the Commission of the proposed installation of the 
auxiliary facilities at least 30 days prior to the installation of such 
facilities.
Section 2.55(b)--Construction Area for Replacement Facilities
    The NOPR proposed to revise Sec. 2.55(b)(1)(ii), concerning the 
replacement of existing facilities, to clarify that this section only 
applies to replacements that involve construction within the 
certificated right-of-way. It also proposed a new appendix A to part 2 
which gave guidance on the size of the construction right-of-way (ROW) 
and extra workspace which could be used for construction under 
Sec. 2.55(b). These guidelines apply only where there are no records or 
other tangible evidence of what areas were used in the original 
construction.
    Comments: This proposal generated many comments from the industry, 
most expressing the concern that the proposal is too strict and does 
not take into account many realities that pipelines face with 
replacement construction projects. The Interstate Natural Gas 
Association of America (INGAA) contends that where a pipeline's 
existing right-of-way (ROW) does not cover the area outside the ROW 
proposed for use, pipelines will secure such additional ROW from 
affected landowners prior to commencing any construction activities. 
For example, INGAA states that access to a facility to be replaced will 
be different because original equipment bridges and other ROW accesses 
have been restored, or construction may require working on the opposite 
side of the original ditch because loop lines may have rendered the 
original side unsafe. In addition, INGAA states that Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules require more workspace 
for safe construction. Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership 
(Great Lakes), Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) and Williston Basin 
have similar concerns. These parties contend that the proposed 
regulations are not clear as to whether replacements are limited to the 
specific ROW historically attached to the facility being replaced or 
whether any existing, certificated ROW or previously disturbed on and 
off-site temporary work areas may by used for the replacement. They 
argue that pipelines should be able to use any previously disturbed 
areas because they would have already been reviewed environmentally by 
the Commission, or other federal, state or local agencies exercising 
jurisdiction. They urge the Commission not to set workspace limits 
based merely on the size of the replacement pipeline, since other 
factors such as construction technique, soil type and terrain are 
involved. In addition, these parties contend that since section 2.55 
does not confer eminent domain, landowners would be protected.
    Duke Energy Pipelines (Duke Energy) 11 contends that a 
one-size-fits-all approach fails to address additional work space 
needed for termination points, such as turn-arounds, which would not 
have been termination points during the original construction. It 
claims this approach also fails to address restrictions due to adjacent 
newer pipeline, larger diameter pipeline, new environmental 
restrictions such as topsoil segregation, and similar changes that have 
occurred since original construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Duke Energy includes Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, 
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle), Texas Eastern 
Transmission Corporation, and Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline). 
Duke Energy states that it recently announced the sale to CMS Energy 
of Panhandle and Trunkline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    El Paso and Enron argue that the appendix A limitation of a 75-foot 
ROW for pipelines larger than 12 inches is too restrictive. They 
propose that the Commission revise appendix A to implement a more 
flexible approach for determining the appropriate amount of ROW. El 
Paso suggests that appendix A provide that replacements involving 30 
inch or larger pipeline can use up to 100 feet of ROW, while Enron 
proposes that 100 feet of ROW is appropriate for

[[Page 26575]]

replacements involving 16 inch or greater pipeline. According to El 
Paso, such space is needed because OSHA requires deeper and wider 
trenches for larger pipelines.
    In order to obviate the Commission's concern that the replacement 
activities were not within the original certificated footprint, INGAA 
proposes to add a new paragraph (e) to new appendix A, part 2. New 
paragraph 2(e) is proposed to read:

    If not located within the areas described above, pipe or 
equipment storage yards and temporary construction trailers should 
be located in previously graded or graveled areas.

    INGAA argues that where multiple lines exist within an existing ROW 
corridor, siting of new replacement facilities should be allowed in any 
portion of the existing certificated or maintained ROW, whether or not 
that ROW was the one certificated for the replacement facility or not. 
Since the entire ROW has been disturbed and dedicated for use by the 
pipeline, use of any portion of such ROW would be consistent with the 
initial finding that construction was in the public convenience and 
necessity.
    INGAA seeks clarification that replacement facilities not 
qualifying under Sec. 2.55(b) because of the ROW issue would qualify as 
eligible facilities under Sec. 157.208(a).
    Michigan Gas Storage Company (Michigan Gas) asks that the 
Commission clarify or expand on the requirement in Sec. 2.55(b)(1)(ii) 
that replacement facilities have a substantially ``equivalent designed 
delivery capacity'' as the facilities being replaced. Michigan Gas 
states that it is not clear whether, in the context of storage wells, 
the term refers to daily deliverability or seasonal cyclic capacity or 
both. Michigan Gas further states that for transmission facilities, it 
is not clear whether this term applies to daily design capacity or to 
maximum capacity as used in Sec. 157.14(a)(7) and (8).
    Commission Response. As stated, several commenters request that the 
Commission expand Sec. 2.55(b) to allow pipelines to construct 
replacement facilities and/or use areas outside of the existing ROW for 
additional work space. However, we note that acquiring additional ROW 
from landowners raises issues associated with the Commission's 
landowner notification proceeding in Docket No. RM98-17-000. We do not 
believe it is appropriate to expand the pipeline's ability to acquire 
additional property from landowners outside of the Commission's review 
before we resolve the issues raised in the landowner notification 
proceeding. Accordingly, we will continue to follow Commission policy 
and limit the pipeline's use of property to construct facilities under 
Sec. 2.55 to the existing ROW.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NorAm Transmission Co., 70 FERC para.61,030 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix A to part 2 defines current policy for the workspace 
area.13 Current Policy requires that replacement facilities 
must be placed in the existing ROW. The Commission believes that the 
work spaces designated in the appendix A are adequate for the general 
case and will be adequate for most situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, March 15, 1995 letter from the Director of OPR to 
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company in Docket No. CP95-189-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we are not allowing additional ROW width under Sec. 2.55, we 
are not limiting ROW width with respect to construction under any other 
part of the regulations. The staff's ``Upland Erosion Control and 
Mitigation Plan'' and ``Wetland and Waterbody Mitigation Procedures'' 
specify guidelines for ROW width, but the applicant can propose 
different ROW widths appropriate to the project. The Commission will 
determine if the proposed widths are justified on a case-by-case basis.
    INGAA has filed a study concerning ROW needs. We will take this 
study under consideration when we review project-specific justification 
for proposed ROW widths.
Miscellaneous Sec. 2.55  Issues
    While we proposed no changes to the reporting requirements in 
Sec. 2.55(b)(4), Williams contends that the one-time report in 
Sec. 2.55(b)(4)(i) should be deleted, consistent with deletions of 
other obsolete reports. We agree. This report relates to replacements 
commenced between July 14, 1992 and November 9, 1992 and is no longer 
relevant and will be deleted.
    Williston Basin asks the Commission to clarify whether very minor 
replacements need to be included in the annual report required in 
Sec. 2.55(b)(4)(ii). We clarify that any facility, regardless of size 
needs to be reported, unless, as the regulation states, the facility is 
an above-ground replacement that did not involve compression or the use 
of earth-moving equipment.
    Williston Basin also seeks a clarification that the reference to 
``earthmoving equipment'' in Sec. 2.55(b)(4)(ii) means mechanical 
equipment. We clarify that the term ``earthmoving equipment'' is 
intended to mean motor-driven equipment used for ground disturbance.
    As to the clarification Michigan Gas seeks, the phrase ``equivalent 
designed delivery capacity,'' in the context of storage wells refers to 
both the daily deliverability and the seasonal cyclic capacity. In the 
context of transmission facilities, it refers to peak day design 
capacity, not maximum capacity.

B. Part 153--Application for Authorization To Export or Import Natural 
Gas

    Although this part does not currently require that filings be made 
electronically, the Commission intends that this part will be subject 
to the electronic filing requirements currently being established in 
the proceeding in Docket No. PL98-1-000.

Section 153.21--Conformity With Requirements

    Section 153.21(b) sets forth the criteria for the rejection of 
filings made under this subpart. The NOPR proposed to revise this 
section to authorize the Director of OPR to reject applications that do 
not conform to the requirements of this part within 10 days of filing, 
without prejudice to the applicant's refiling a complete application.
    Comments: The Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) states that the 
proposed revision is silent as to whether rejection will have any 
bearing on acceptance of a subsequent application that does not conform 
with Commission regulations. NGSA states that the related Sec. 157.8 
allows for rejection without prejudice to refiling, and proposes that 
Sec. 153.21(b) be modified by adding ``without prejudice.'' NGSA also 
proposes that the Commission not dismiss an application under 
Sec. 153.21(b) unless the applicant has been given notice of the 
defects and allowed an opportunity to cure those defects.
    Commission Response: We intend for pipelines to file complete 
applications or face the prospect of having their proposal rejected. 
However, our intent is to reject such applications without prejudice to 
pipelines refiling completed applications. We will also clarify our 
standards for rejection so that an application will not be rejected 
unless it ``patently fails to comply with applicable statutory 
requirements or with applicable Commission rules, regulations, and 
orders for which a waiver has not been granted.''

[[Page 26576]]

C. Part 157--Applications for Certificate of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and for Orders Permitting and Approving Abandonment Under 
section 7 of the Natural Gas Act

Subpart A--Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and for Orders Permitting and Approving Abandonment of 
Service under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, as Amended, Concerning 
any Operation, Sales, Service, Construction, Extension, Acquisition or 
Abandonment
Section 157.6--Applications; General Requirements
    The NOPR proposed to add a new Sec. 157.6(b)(8), which will require 
pipelines to file the information necessary to make an upfront 
determination on the rate treatment of new construction projects in 
accordance with the Commission's Statement of Policy in Docket No. 
PL94-4-000.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pricing Policy For New And Existing Facilities constructed 
By Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 71 FERC para.61,241 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Enron states that requiring information regarding the 
detailed rate impact analysis by rate schedule and zone is over broad 
and should be required only where an applicant is seeking rolled-in 
rate treatment.
    INGAA and Koch Gateway submit that the requirement that ``an 
analysis reflecting the impact of the fuel usage by zone resulting from 
the proposed expansion'' should be clarified to reflect that not all 
pipelines employ a zoned fuel rate. Koch Gateway proposes that 
Sec. 157.6(b)(8)(ii) be revised to read as follows: ``* * * and an 
analysis reflecting the impact of the fuel usage resulting from the 
proposed expansion project (including by zone, if applicable).''
    Commission Response: While the NOPR preamble is not specifically 
clear on when the detailed rate impact analysis should be filed, the 
proposed regulation states that the detailed information is needed only 
``if the applicant does not propose to charge incremental rates.'' We 
will clarify our position and the proposed regulation. We clarify that 
pipelines are required to file the information necessary to make an 
upfront determination on the rate treatment of new construction 
projects only when they propose rolled-in rates or when they propose 
incremental rates that are below the maximum part 284 rate. In both 
these cases, the same implications involving the initial rate 
established by the Commission and the prospective rate impact apply. 
Thus, the information required in Sec. 157.6(b)(8) is necessary for the 
Commission to make a proper determination regarding the proposed rate 
treatment in both these instances. However, pipelines need not file the 
information in proposals where it seeks incremental rates at or above 
the maximum effective part 284 rate.
    Further, we note that Koch Gateway's revision is appropriate and 
will be adopted. The NOPR did not intend for pipelines to submit 
information that was not relative to their system's rate structure. To 
the extent that pipelines employ zoned rates, they must submit the 
requested information. If a pipeline employs a postage stamp rate or 
some other non-zoned rate structure, it does not need to submit such 
information on a zone basis.
Section 157.8--Acceptance for Filing or Rejection of Applications.
    The NOPR proposed to amend this section to authorize the Director 
of OPR to reject applications that do not conform to the requirements 
of this part within 10 days of filing, without prejudice to the 
applicant's refiling a complete application.
    Comments: Duke Energy and National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation 
(National Fuel) contend that the proposal is not consistent with the 
existing authority the Director of OPR has to reject filings. They 
argue that the existing authority to reject filings in 
Sec. 375.307(b)(2) applies to tariff and rate schedule filings that 
automatically go into effect within 30 days unless the Commission takes 
action. Further, they argue that this rejection only applies if the 
filing ``patently fails to comply with applicable statutory 
requirements and with all applicable Commission rules, regulations, and 
orders for which a waiver has not been granted.'' Similarly, they state 
that Sec. 375.307(e)(6) provides for the rejection of prior notice 
applications which ``patently fail to comply with the provisions of 
Sec. 157.205(b).'' However, they contend that the proposal to reject 
certificate applications contains no minimum legal standards, since 
rejection can occur if an application does not conform to the 
requirements of part 157.
    Duke Energy, Great Lakes, Indicated Shippers,15 and 
National Fuel all contend that the Commission must identify any 
deficiencies in an application and allow for the deficiencies to be 
remedied before a filing is rejected. Duke Energy specifically proposes 
that instead of rejecting an application within 10 days, a deficiency 
letter should be issued within 10 days, with a subsequent 10 days to 
cure. Duke Energy contends that this will not increase the burden on 
staff since Sec. 385.2001 requires a rejection letter indicating the 
deficiencies. Thus, to the extent that there is some confusion in the 
requirements for filing an application, a deficiency notice will 
provide a reasonable opportunity for issues to be resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Indicated Shippers consists of Chevron U.S.A., Dynegy 
Corporation, Exxon Corporation, Marathon Oil Corporation, and Shell 
Offshore, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indicated Shippers states that if the proposal is adopted, the 
Commission should modify Sec. 157.9, the notice provision, to require 
that the Commission issue a formal notice of the Director's rejection 
in lieu of the official notice of the application. In that way, 
interested parties will be notified promptly that there is no need to 
intervene and/or protest. Indicated Shippers also contends that the 
proposal intends for the Commission to assign the same docket number to 
a resubmitted application. Therefore, the Commission should establish a 
time limit for resubmission of an application, rather than leave the 
docket open.
    Enron and INGAA are concerned that the proposed language could be 
interpreted to mean that a filing could be rejected for incomplete 
environmental reports, which are incomplete for any reason other than 
denial of access to lands, even if all of the minimum checklist items 
are provided. They propose that the Commission clarify in section 157.8 
that a filing will not be rejected if the minimum checklist provisions 
have been met.
    Commission Response: We will revise our proposal so that the 
standards for rejecting certificate filings are the same as those the 
Director of OPR applies in rejecting filings under Sec. 375.307(b)(2) 
and (e)(6). Under those sections, a filing will not be rejected unless 
it ``patently fails to comply with applicable statutory requirements 
and with all applicable Commission rules, regulations, and orders for 
which a waiver has not been granted.'' We will incorporate this 
language into Secs. 153.21 and 157.8. In addition, we will view an 
application as ``patently'' deficient if it fails to include the 
minimum checklist of environmental information, as well as the 
information required in part 157. Thus, pipelines are put on notice 
that they must file the information requested or their applications 
will be subject to rejection. The Commission will not expend its 
resources on patently deficient applications.
    Requests for a notice and cure period prior to rejecting any filing 
are denied. The minimum environmental checklist and the information 
required in part 157 do not include new or unique

[[Page 26577]]

requirements. We are codifying our long-standing environmental 
procedures in order to help ensure more timely processing of 
applications by requiring that pipelines no longer file patently 
deficient applications. As such, we will no longer send deficiency 
letters seeking the minimum checklist information required of filings. 
However, if an application is rejected, the Director of OPR will send a 
letter indicating the deficiencies and reasons for rejection. In such a 
circumstance, an applicant will have full knowledge of the deficiencies 
in its application and the steps necessary to comply with the 
Commission's filing requirements. Also, the Director of OPR's rejection 
letter will be on CIPs and potential interveners should take notice.
    We disagree with Indicated Shippers' belief that a resubmitted 
application be redocketed with the same number as the rejected 
application. We are conforming Sec. 157.8 to the existing regulations 
in Sec. 153.21(b) that require a new docket number for rejected 
applications that are resubmitted. The Commission prefers to have 
finality in its docketing system. In addition, the Commission's 
regulations give no administrative or other procedural benefit to 
applicants because of the docket number assigned to a particular 
project.

    Finally, we note that INGAA proposes the following revision: 
However, an application will not be rejected solely on the basis of 
(1) environmental reports that are incomplete because the company 
has not been granted access by the affected landowner(s) to perform 
required surveys, etc., or (2) environmental reports that are 
incomplete, but where the minimum checklist requirements of part 
380, appendix A have been met.

    We agree with INGAA's proposed revision and will change Sec. 157.8 
accordingly. We recognize that not all environmental information is 
available at the time of filing. However, the information in the 
checklist is the minimum that must be submitted at the time of filing.
Section 157.9--Notice of Application
    The NOPR proposed to issue a notice within 10 days of filing.
    Comments: The Process Gas Consumers Group, the American Iron and 
Steel Institute, and the Georgia Industrial Group (Process Gas 
Consumers) are concerned that abandonment of laterals will strand end 
users behind LDCs. They want to strengthen the provisions to require 
that notices should be actually delivered to all of the pipeline's 
shippers who have taken service through the lateral or delivery point 
in the last five years. In addition, they argue that notice should be 
posted on the pipeline's EBB and that applications subject to 
delegation orders have as complete a notice as abandonment applications 
going to the Commission, including maps of the facilities to be 
abandoned. They contend that such requirements will ensure due process 
rights of shippers which directly or indirectly, or through released 
capacity, take service through the pipeline.
    Commission Response: We believe that the Commission's current 
procedure for noticing certificate applications, including prior notice 
applications filed under Sec. 157.205, more than adequately identifies 
the nature and content of each filing. Requiring that notices be 
delivered to all shippers that have used certain facilities during the 
past five years would prove to be extremely unwieldy, burdensome, and 
administratively inefficient. We see no basis why shippers who are no 
longer on the pipeline system should be notified. We do not intend to 
create a separate class of applications that are treated differently 
than other filings. Moreover, notices of applications, and applications 
themselves are available for electronic viewing at the Commission's 
website at www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm. Thus, Process Gas 
Consumers, and all others, will be able to view in total all 
applications filed with the Commission.

Section 157.10--Interventions and Protests

    The NOPR determined that allowing parties to intervene in response 
to Draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) is appropriate. It also 
proposed to amend Sec. 157.10 to clarify that pipelines do not have to 
serve voluminous or difficult to reproduce materials, such as copies of 
environmental information, upon all parties in a proceeding, except as 
specifically requested. The NOPR provided that any party requesting a 
complete copy of a filing must be served with one within two business 
days.
    Comments: INGAA also seeks clarification that the pipeline need 
only keep voluminous or difficult to reproduce material, such as 
complete sets of environmental information, available to the public 
until the construction application is no longer pending Commission 
action. Similarly, Great Lakes states that it is not clear what 
constitutes a ``central location'' for keeping a complete filing. Great 
Lakes seeks clarification that this requirement is met if the pipeline 
maintains copies, either paper or electronic, at compressor stations 
located closest to the project site(s). Williston Basin wants to make 
such information available in public building(s) or town(s) near the 
vicinity of the job site.
    Duke Energy requests that the Commission extend the proposed two 
business day time period to provide voluminous or difficult- to-
reproduce material to 10 days. Similarly, Great Lakes seeks to have the 
time frame extended from two days to five days. Both parties believe 
that numerous requests, the nature of the information, and the fact 
that outside consultants may be required to reproduce the material 
necessitates more than a two day time frame. The American Public Gas 
Association states that parties will need time to evaluate information 
once it is received and recommends that the Commission provide 45 days 
for interventions to be prepared. El Paso Energy seeks clarification 
that companies are not required to provide copies of confidential 
material to interveners and will still be able to request confidential 
treatment for information under section 388.112. Likewise, Great Lakes 
wants clarification that privileged and confidential data are not 
required to be provided with any electronic information kept near the 
job location.
    Process Gas Consumers requests that all notices supply the name, 
address and telephone number of an applicant's knowledgeable contact to 
allow parties to request an applicant's voluminous material (only 
available upon request).
    Great Lakes urges the Commission not to expand its current 
intervention procedures to allow non-utility agencies to intervene by 
notice. The Sempra Energy Companies (Sempra Energy) 16 is 
concerned that pipelines will not provide voluminous material timely 
and thus, interveners may be not have time to evaluate a filing and 
face having their protest dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Sempra Energy consists of various entities including 
Pacific Interstate Transmission Company, Pacific Interstate Offshore 
Company, Southern California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas and 
Electric Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) states that 
the rule should allow for intervention based on section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) the same as intervention is 
allowed for NEPA.
    Commission Response: As to the Council's request, we note that we 
treat section 106 of the NHPA as part of the environmental process.
    We agree with INGAA that a pipeline only need keep voluminous 
materials available to the public until the application is no longer 
pending Commission action, i.e., the order is final and not subject to 
rehearing. The

[[Page 26578]]

reason the information is meant to be available to the public in the 
first place is so that parties will know all the details of a 
particular project in sufficient time to intervene and express any 
opinions they may hold.
    The Commission will allow pipelines to keep electronic copies of 
voluminous material at a central location, such as libraries and like 
public buildings, in each county in the project area provided that the 
information is easily accessible. Williston Basin's proposal that such 
information be made available in public buildings or towns near the job 
site appears to present fewer access problems than keeping such 
material at the job location. There could be safety or other reasons 
that the interested public may not have easy access to materials kept 
on the job site. It seems preferable to locate such material in 
buildings open to the public with flexible business hours, i.e., 
libraries and like public buildings with evening and weekend hours, 
located in each county as close as practicable to the project area to 
provide for as much public access as possible.
    Various parties object to the proposal that pipelines serve a full 
copy of such voluminous or difficult to reproduce material on 
requesting parties within two business days and seek a longer time 
period. Due to the nature of the material at issue, it seems reasonable 
to allow the pipelines more time to reproduce and distribute requested 
material. We will require that the pipeline have complete copies of its 
application at the above mentioned publicly available building 
location(s) in each county affected by the project, either in paper or 
electronic format, within three business days of filing an application. 
However, we will allow the pipeline five business days from the date of 
a request to supply a requesting party with a full copy of the filing. 
Since we are requiring that pipelines make complete copies of 
applications available publicly, we do not anticipate extensive 
individual requests for such copies. However, it is incumbent upon the 
pipeline applicant to serve copies of its application to parties 
seeking detailed information regarding the proposed project.
    Pipelines do not have to supply privileged or confidential material 
when serving these copies, nor supply such material with copies 
provided near the job location. However, if at a later time, the 
Commission or its delegate determines that any claim to privileged or 
confidential treatment under Sec. 388.112 is without merit, the 
pipeline must serve such material on requesting parties and include 
such material with the copies provided near the job location.
    We agree with Process Gas Consumers' request that all notices 
should supply the name, address and telephone number of the contact 
person to allow parties to request an applicant's voluminous material. 
We will modify Secs. 157.6(b)(7) and 157.205(b)(5) accordingly.
    As to Great Lakes' concern regarding non-utility interveners, the 
NOPR did not change the status or rights of any parties intervening in 
certificate proceedings. All parties have the same rights and status in 
a proceeding before the Commission as they had prior to issuance of the 
NOPR.
    Sempra Energy's concern is misplaced. The intent in the NOPR was to 
limit the OPR Director's authority rejecting unsubstantiated protests 
to prior notices filed under the blanket certificate issued in subpart 
F of part 157. The Director of OPR's authority does not extend to 
rejection of protests to section 7(c) applications filed under subpart 
A of part 157. If a pipeline does not provide voluminous material 
timely, as required by the regulations, parties can protest and/or file 
a complaint. In such a situation, the pipeline risks delaying the 
timetable it has established for completing its proposed project. 
However, in order to prevent any further misunderstanding of our intent 
regarding rejection of protests, we will modify Sec. 375.307(a)(10) to 
specifically state that this rejection authority is limited to 
unsubstantiated protests to prior notice applications.
Section 157.16--Exhibits Relating to Acquisitions
    The NOPR proposed to revise Sec. 157.16(c)(1) to require the 
pipeline to include a brief statement explaining the basis or methods 
used to derive the related depreciation, depletion and amortization 
reserves.
    Comments: INGAA is concerned about the change requiring ``* * * a 
brief statement explaining the basis or methods used to derive the 
related depreciation, depletion or amortization''. It contends that the 
proposed change is duplicative of other provisions in Sec. 157.16 and 
should be deleted. It argues that the introductory text should provide 
the Commission with the information it seeks and that the proposed 
revision is unnecessary.
    Commission Response: We disagree. The purpose of the change is to 
point out a specific area where additional information would facilitate 
the processing of an application. While the introductory text of 
Sec. 157.16 requires the pipeline to provide a full and complete 
explanation of all particulars of the acquisition, this requirement is 
very broad and often overlooked with respect to the accumulated 
depreciation, depletion and amortization reserve amounts. When this 
occurs, the application is delayed because this information must then 
be requested from the pipeline.
Section 157.17--Applications for Temporary Certificates in Cases of 
Emergency
    The NOPR proposed to amend Secs. 157.17(a) and (b) to remove as 
outdated the reference to the date the Commission initiated its 
electronic filing requirements.
    Comments: Great Lakes urges the Commission to use the NOPR to 
clarify the circumstances which constitute an emergency under this 
section and Sec. 284.262. Great Lakes wants the Commission to clarify 
that if an emergency exists, a temporary certificate can be authorized 
when construction is necessary to forestall an anticipated loss of 
capacity or when a foreseeable facility outage (or other emergency 
event) outside a pipeline's control is probable. As an example, Great 
Lakes cites naturally occurring changes such as a landslide or riverbed 
erosion. A pipeline may deem it prudent to relocate facilities away 
from the suspect area before damage occurs. Another example involves 
corrosion that will, in short time, breach the pipewall. A pipeline 
should be able to immediately repair such a situation as an emergency.
    Great Lakes also proposes that Sec. 284.262 be updated to reflect 
pipelines' transition from merchants to transporters. Great Lakes 
contends that such a change would redefine emergencies outside the 
context of a gas supply shortage and make allowances for emergency 
facility repairs. Great Lakes suggests that the Commission revise the 
self-implementing emergency provisions of Sec. 284.262 to permit 60-day 
remedial construction to remedy facility problems which threaten 
interruption of transportation, followed by a 45-day prior notice-type 
filing for permanent approval to operate the emergency facilities. This 
change would allow pipelines to repair facilities over a 60-day period, 
and then file a prior notice to obtain permanent authority to operate 
emergency facilities.
    Finally, Great Lakes states that the Department of Transportation 
(DOT) would view a pressure reduction, at least temporarily, as 
relieving certain emergency conditions. However, Great Lakes is 
concerned that this might not satisfy NGA requirements since the

[[Page 26579]]

pressure reduction could result in a loss of design-day throughput and 
an involuntary abandonment of service. Great Lakes seeks clarification 
that when a DOT-defined emergency transpires, for purposes of acquiring 
a temporary certificate, the emergency will continue until the pipeline 
has restored its system to its prior operating condition.
    Commission Response: We agree that our emergency regulations should 
be updated to recognize that pipelines are now primarily transporters 
and not merchants of gas and that pipelines should be able to respond 
to imminent emergencies. However, the possibility still exists that a 
supply shortfall could precipitate an emergency. Therefore, we will 
amend Sec. 284.262 to reflect that emergencies can occur due to 
diminution of pipeline supply or capacity, both anticipated and 
unanticipated. We clarify that pipelines can repair facilities affected 
by an emergency in order to restore capacity for a 60-day period 
(subject to an additional 60 day period) followed by a prior notice or 
section 7(c) application to obtain permanent authority to operate the 
emergency facilities.
    We also clarify that in emergency instances where pipelines are 
required to reduce operating pressure to satisfy DOT safety standards, 
the underlying emergency continues to exist until the pipeline restores 
its regular operating conditions. Of course, the continued emergency 
status is contingent upon the pipeline complying with the requirements 
of sections 157.17 and 284.262.
Section 157.18--Applications To Abandon Facilities or Services; 
exhibits
    The NOPR proposed to add an explicit statement that makes it clear 
that an environmental report is required for certain kinds of 
abandonments as specified in Sec. 380.3(c)(2).
    Comments: INGAA notes that the proposed regulations require an 
environmental report for the abandonment of facilities, except for 
categorical exclusions. INGAA and Enron believe that all facilities 
abandoned in-place should be excluded from the environmental reporting 
requirement. This would be consistent with the proposal in the NOPR in 
Sec. 157.206(b) that environmental review should be commensurate with 
the amount of ground disturbance. The same principle should apply to 
facilities abandoned in-place. In the alternative, INGAA, Enron, and 
Questar suggests that any necessary clearances be provided for in-place 
abandonments rather than a full environmental report.
    Commission Response: We do not agree with INGAA that all facilities 
abandoned in place should be excluded from the environmental reporting 
requirement. For example, certain facilities may be contaminated with 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Even facilities that are abandoned in 
place may have associated ground disturbance such as that required to 
cut and cap the pipeline segment. In addition, the Commission wants to 
determine if the landowner has any concerns with respect to having the 
pipeline removed. Clearly, this action warrants some level of 
environmental review. As has been our policy involving all projects 
that are minor in scope, pipelines can determine what environmental 
resource reports are not applicable to their project and identify them 
in the application along with the reasons they are not applicable. 
Thus, a detailed environmental report is not contemplated for a routine 
abandonment in place of a section of pipeline, but key environmental 
factors need to be addressed.
Section 157.20--General Conditions Applicable to Certificates
Section 157.20(b)
    The NOPR proposed to revise Sec. 157.20(b) to allow for facilities 
to be completed ``and made available for service'' instead of ``in 
actual operation'' within the period of time specified in a particular 
order.
    Comments: INGAA and Enron support the concept, but have concerns 
about the notification requirement. Both parties state that pipelines 
may have no way of verifying, at the 30 day mark, whether the end-user/
shipper will meet the time period to flow gas. Enron requests removal 
of the 30 day notification requirement. Facilities may be available to 
other shippers on a secondary basis, although the firm end-user/shipper 
has not taken service. INGAA and Williams propose that pipelines report 
within 10 days after the prescribed time if the end-user/shipper has 
not taken service through the new facilities. Enron suggests that a 
pipeline report within 30 days instead of 10 days after the date 
specified in order if the shipper has not taken service through new 
facilities.
    Williams recommends that the phrase ``shall be actually undertaken 
and regularly performed'' be modified to read ``shall be available for 
regular performance.'' Williams contends that this is consistent with 
the proposed change in Sec. 157.206(c), since the pipeline cannot 
control when the customer may be ready to start service.
    Process Gas Consumers requests that the Commission clarify that it 
did not intend to continue applying a one-year completion period 
(``period of time to be specified''), since it is changing the 
regulation to allow for unintended delays in commencing service. They 
also want the Commission to clarify that it will continue to be 
flexible in granting waivers and/or extensions of time to complete 
facilities.
    Commission Response: We agree that pipeline applicants may not be 
able to verify 30 days in advance that a shipper is unable to meet the 
timetable to commence service. It seems reasonable to allow a pipeline 
to report within 10 days after the prescribed time if the end- user/
shipper has not taken service through the facilities. In addition, 
Williams' proposal seems reasonable and consistent with the change 
proposed in the NOPR. However, Process Gas Consumers is incorrect in 
assuming that the Commission intends to discontinue determining a time 
frame for the facilities to be constructed. To the contrary, we intend 
to continue applying a specific time period for the completion of 
construction projects. While that time period is typically one year, 
the Commission has permitted other periods of time for completion of a 
project and will continue to exercise its discretion in acting on 
waivers and/or extensions of time to complete facilities.
Section 157.20(c) and (d)
    We will revise Sec. 157.20(c) and (d) to remove the requirement 
that quarterly reports be filed. Section 157.20(c)(2) requires 
applicants to file quarterly progress reports on authorized 
construction. We will remove this section because it duplicates 
information the Commission's environmental staff already collects. 
Likewise, we will remove Sec. 157.20(d)(1), which requires applicants 
to file quarterly progress reports on the status of facility 
acquisitions. However, pipelines are still required to notify the 
Commission of the date of acquisition of facilities and the beginning 
of authorized operations.

Subpart F--Interstate Pipeline Blanket Certificates and Authorization 
Under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for Certain Transactions and 
Abandonment

Section 157.202--Definitions
Section 157.202(b)(2)(i)--Eligible Facilities
    The NOPR proposed to expand the definition of ``eligible facility'' 
contained in Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(i) to include mainline and lateral

[[Page 26580]]

replacement facilities that do not qualify under Sec. 2.55(b) because 
they will have an impact on mainline capacity.
    Comments: INGAA contends that any replacement project which would 
not qualify under the proposed Sec. 2.55(b) regulations would or should 
qualify as an eligible facility under Sec. 157.208(a), if it meets the 
spending limits and environmental constraints. Similarly, National 
Fuel, Questar and Williams are concerned that the change would not 
cover a mainline replacement not qualifying under Sec. 2.55(b) because 
of the requirement that replacements must be within same ROW. They 
argue that replacements not in the same ROW should be covered under the 
blanket certificate instead of requiring a separate Sec. 7(c) 
application. National Fuel suggests the following revision to proposed 
Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(i):

    Further, eligible facility includes mainline and lateral 
replacements that do not qualify under Sec. 2.55(b) of this chapter 
because they will have an impact on the capacity of the mainline 
facilities, or because they will not satisfy the location or work 
space requirements of Sec. 2.55(b).

    Commission Response: We intend to allow replacement facilities that 
do not qualify under Sec. 2.55(b) because of land requirements to be 
eligible facilities that can be constructed under Sec. 157.208 of the 
blanket certificate. Further, to the extent that pipelines require more 
ROW than is provided for in appendix A to part 2 for replacement 
projects, including those not in the original footprint, such as river 
crossings, etc., those replacements would qualify as eligible 
facilities under our proposal. We reiterate that any such replacements 
are subject to the environmental requirements of this section and will 
be subject to whatever landowner notification procedures that may be 
adopted in Docket No. RM98-17-000.
Replacements for Sound Engineering Purposes and Incremental Capacity
    Comments: The American Gas Association (AGA) states that the 
proposed regulations do not clearly reflect the Commission's intentions 
that replacements must be done for sound engineering purposes and not 
to create additional mainline capacity. AGA contends that the proposals 
will allow construction of facilities that can substantially increase 
capacity and result in bypass. AGA proposes that Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(i) 
be amended to provide that replacements are done for sound engineering 
reasons and not to create additional mainline capacity. Similarly, El 
Paso and Michigan Gas Storage request the Commission clarify the 
regulation so that mainline and lateral replacements are done only for 
``sound engineering reasons and not for the purpose of creating 
additional mainline capacity.'' They contend that this clarification in 
regulatory text will ensure that the limitation is clearly communicated 
to certificate holders, eliminating potential confusion and compliance 
issues.
    El Paso contends that the Commission should remove the words 
``because they will have an impact on the capacity of the mainline 
facilities'' from the definition replacements as eligible facilities. 
El Paso argues the proposed language defining replacement facilities is 
likely to create confusion because it refers to ``impact on the 
capacity,'' whereas Sec. 2.55(b) requires replacements to have a 
``substantially equivalent designed delivery capacity.''
    NGSA, on the other hand, opposes expanding eligible facilities to 
include any mainline and lateral replacements done automatically. NGSA 
contends that such replacements should only be allowed on a prior 
notice basis. This would allow parties to protest unnecessary 
replacements, which they believe are not being done for ``sound 
engineering reasons,'' but solely to increase capacity. NGSA proposes 
that any facility replacement resulting in an increase of capacity be 
subject to a prior notice.
    Similarly, Sempra Energy opposes inclusion of any mainline 
facilities within the blanket certificate. Sempra Energy is concerned 
with additional mainline capacity being constructed under the guise of 
``replacements.'' It believes that new or additional markets should be 
served through permanent capacity release, by another market entrant, 
or by LDCs or other non-FERC regulated services. Allowing construction 
of additional mainline capacity under the blanket provides pipelines a 
competitive advantage without Commission, state, consumer, and 
competitive reviews.
    Indicated Shippers suggests that prior notice be required for 
construction of all mainline facilities that could affect capacity, 
regardless of cost. Indicated Shippers believes such a limit would help 
protect against pipelines circumventing cost caps by segmenting 
essentially integrated projects in order to keep each component below 
the automatic authorization cost cap.
    Commission Response: As we stated in the NOPR and reiterate here, 
any replacement facilities must be done for sound engineering reasons. 
Our purpose is to allow replacements under the blanket certificate 
where the replaced facility is marginally larger than the existing 
pipeline. We recognize that this may result in an incidental increase 
in mainline capacity. To the extent that additional capacity is created 
by the project, such capacity must be incidental and not intended to 
increase the point to point transportation capacity of the 
pipeline.17 As such, we will revise the definition of 
eligible facility in Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(1) to include replacement 
facilities that result in an increase in the capacity of mainline 
facilities. The regulation will also specifically state that 
replacements must be done for sound engineering purposes and not for 
the primary purpose of creating additional mainline capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ However, if usable capacity is created, it must be posted 
on the pipeline's EBB along with any other unused capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NGSA and Sempra Energy oppose inclusion of replacements under the 
blanket certificate because they believe that pipelines will use the 
new regulations to increase mainline capacity at customer expense. We 
disagree. Revising the definition of eligible facility specifically 
puts pipelines on notice that any replacement must be done for sound 
engineering reasons and not for the purpose of creating additional 
mainline capacity. Parties believing that replacements are done for 
other than those reasons should inform the Commission and may want to 
consider filing a complaint. In addition, they can challenge the cost 
and intent of the replacement in the relevant rate proceeding. Finally, 
we find that parties have not presented any compelling reason why the 
Commission should specifically exclude all replacements that result in 
an incidental, incremental increase in capacity from being subject to 
the automatic authorization requirement.
Replacement Compression Facilities
    Comments: Great Lakes proposes that the Commission include 
compressor replacements as eligible facilities, when such replacements 
cannot be constructed under Sec. 2.55(b) because they will have an 
impact on mainline capacity. Great Lakes requests that the Commission 
clarify that replacement compression facilities which result in 
incidental changes in capacity, in addition to increases in replacement 
pipe size, are included in the proposed definition of eligible 
facilities. Great Lakes claims that certain compressor and engine 
models are no longer manufactured and most newer compressors have a 
greater horsepower rating and yield greater capacity. According to 
Great Lakes, a pipeline's option often is reduced to either

[[Page 26581]]

donating a unit so it can replace obsolete or major damaged units 
immediately, or wait for separate section 7(c) approval to install 
replacement compression facilities which yield an unintended, but 
measurable, increase in capacity.
    Great Lakes requests that the Commission recognize a pipeline's 
need for flexibility in terms of sizing replacement compression 
facilities under Sec. 2.55(b). Great Lakes wants the Commission to 
clarify that pipelines are allowed to install under Sec. 2.55(b) 
replacement compressor units or components which are the nearest, 
practical, commercially available match to the removed unit or 
component.
    Commission Response: We agree that replacement compressors, as well 
as replacement mainlines and laterals that have an incidental impact on 
mainline capacity should be covered by the proposed change to the 
definition of eligible facilities because they do not qualify under 
Sec. 2.55(b). The rationale for including replacement compressors is 
the same as that for replacement lines. To the extent that replacement 
pipeline or compression is marginally different than the original 
facilities and may result in an increase in capacity, the replacement 
must be done for sound engineering reasons and not for the primary 
purpose of creating additional mainline capacity.
    However, we emphasize that replacement pipeline and compression 
must be the closest available size and horsepower rating to the 
facilities being replaced. While these replacement projects are subject 
to the spending limits in Sec. 157.208, pipelines must not segment any 
such projects in order to circumvent the automatic or prior notice 
spending limits under the blanket certificate. We note that parties who 
either know or believe that a pipeline segmented replacement facilities 
to avoid cost caps can challenge recovery of those costs in the 
relevant rate proceeding and attempt to show a pattern by the pipeline 
of violating the Commission's regulations.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Our authority to remedy cases of segmenting includes 
revoking the pipeline's blanket authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Sec. 2.55(b) replacements must have a ``substantially 
equivalent design delivery capacity.'' Therefore, if the installation 
of the nearest, practical, commercially available compressor unit would 
result in an increase in capacity, the replacement would not qualify 
under Sec. 2.55(b) and may be eligible to be installed under the 
pipeline's blanket certificate.
Storage Laterals and Miscellaneous Rearrangements
    Comments: The KN Pipelines request that the Commission clarify that 
miscellaneous rearrangement of, and appropriate changes in diameter of 
storage laterals within the field meet the definition of ``eligible 
facility.'' \19\ KN Pipelines contends that the practical process of 
rearranging a mainline pipe or storage pipe is the same, in both cases 
the pipeline would likely have to acquire a new easement. KN Pipelines 
states that a reasonable use of the blanket certificate for the 
relatively small laterals typically associated with storage fields will 
help alleviate an unnecessary burden on the Commission. Similarly, 
Questar seeks clarification that injection and withdrawal laterals 
connecting storage filed wells with central compression or transmission 
lines are eligible as small diameter laterals under Sec. 157.208(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ KN Pipelines consist of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 
America, KN Interstate Gas Transmission Company, and KN Wattenberg 
Transmission Limited Liability Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Michigan Gas also states that the reference in this subsection 
should be to facilities necessary to provide service within existing 
certificated levels, rather than certificated volumes. This would 
recognize that replacement storage field facilities may not be directly 
related to the existing certificated storage ``volumes.''
    Commission Response: We agree with KN Pipelines that storage and 
other lateral lines as well as mainlines can be rearranged under 
Sec. 157.208. Section 157.202(b)(6) contemplates miscellaneous 
rearrangement of facilities that does not result in any change in 
service, including changes in existing field operations or relocation 
of existing sales or transportation facilities. As to KN Pipelines 
clarification, as long as any change in the diameter of storage 
laterals does not result in any change in service such as increasing 
capacity, deliverability or the injection and withdrawal rate, and 
otherwise meets the definition for miscellaneous rearrangement in 
Sec. 157.202(b)(6), we agree with KN Pipeline's request that such a 
change can be done under Sec. 157.208.
    Additionally, injection/withdrawal laterals connecting storage 
field wells with central compression or transmission lines are eligible 
as small diameter laterals under Sec. 157.208(a). These type facilities 
are consistent with the intent of the regulations, as long as they do 
not result in any change in existing service or operation, or increase 
the capacity or deliverability of the storage field. We see no reason 
to treat storage laterals any different than any other lateral covered 
under the blanket authority.
    We also agree with Michigan Gas and will change the reference from 
``within existing certificated volumes'' to ``within existing 
certificated levels.''
Automatic Abandonment
    Comments: El Paso states that the NOPR does not address the issue 
of whether pipelines must obtain abandonment authorization for mainline 
or lateral facilities which are being replaced under the blanket 
certificate. The Commission should clarify that either no section 7(b) 
authority is needed for replacements constructed under this section or 
provide for blanket section 7(b) authority.
    Commission Response: We note that under new Sec. 157.216(a)(2), 
pipelines will have the authority to automatically abandon eligible 
facilities, subject to the pipeline obtaining written consent from 
existing shippers. However, there is no need to get shipper approval 
when the abandonment is for a facility that will be replaced and the 
pipeline will continue service.
Interconnecting Points
    Comments: INGAA wants the Commission to expand the definition of 
interconnecting points to include the pipeline that connects the tap, 
meter, M&R and minor related piping identified in the NOPR. INGAA and 
Koch Gateway believe that excluding interconnecting pipeline segments 
from the blanket certificate unnecessarily restricts open access 
service and limits the ability of pipelines to quickly react to meet 
market demands for additional grid flexibility. According to INGAA and 
Koch Gateway, the spending limits under the blanket certificate 
effectively limits the length of any interconnecting pipeline. INGAA, 
KN Pipelines and Questar request that the Commission, as a minimum, 
include compression as part of the facilities involved in an 
interconnect. They state that compression is common, since the 
prevailing pressures of interconnecting pipelines usually differ.
    Questar argues that allowing only approximately 200 feet of ``minor 
related piping'' is too restrictive. Questar contends that there is a 
clear need to allow piping that may be miles in length, even as much as 
20 miles, to interconnect with other interstate pipelines. Regardless 
of length, Questar states that the function is the same--to connect the 
systems of two transporters operating under Part 284. Citing KN 
Interstate Gas Transmission Company

[[Page 26582]]

(KN Interstate),\20\ Questar contends that many pipelines interpreted 
the term ``interconnecting points'' to include any facility necessary 
to connect the facilities of two open access pipelines, as long as the 
cost fell under the dollar ceiling in Sec. 157.208. Questar proposes 
that the definition be expanded to include any facilities, including 
piping, compression, metering, etc., necessary to interconnect two open 
access transporters. Williams suggests that the Commission add ``and 
associated piping'' after ``interconnecting points'' to recognize in 
the regulations that some additional piping may be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 83 FERC para. 61,305 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission Response: We do not believe it is appropriate to expand 
the definition of eligible facilities to include interconnecting 
pipeline. In KN Interstate, we found that a 2-mile pipeline was not an 
interconnecting point. The order clarified that an interconnecting 
point under Sec. 157.208(a) specifically refers to taps, meters, M&R 
facilities and minor piping. This is consistent with the intent of the 
blanket certificate, which is to allow pipelines to construct 
facilities so routine that they have relatively little impact on 
ratepayers or pipeline operations.
    Among others, non-eligible facilities include main lines, 
extensions of a main line, and any facility, including compression and 
looping, which alters the capacity of a main line.21 Thus, 
while a proposed pipeline facility may be associated with an 
interconnecting point between open-access transporters, the facility 
nevertheless is not an eligible facility because it is a mainline 
connecting two interstate pipelines, not a supply or delivery lateral. 
The same rationale applies to compression located on any such pipeline. 
To specifically clarify this point, we will add a new definition as 
Sec. 157.202(b)(12), Interconnecting point(s), to specifically limit 
the eligible facilities to the tap, metering, M&R facilities and minor 
related piping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ We are adopting a limited exception to our definition of 
eligible facilities to allow replacement mainline, lateral, and 
compression facilities that may result in an incidental increase in 
mainline capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Storage Injection, Withdrawal, and Replacement Wells
    Comments: Enron, INGAA and Michigan Gas contend that adding the 
word ``storage'' in the definition of eligible facility, ``needed by 
the certificate holder to receive gas into its system for further 
transport or storage'' permits storage injection/withdrawal and 
replacement wells and associated piping to be constructed under the 
blanket certificate. They suggest that the Commission explicitly 
confirm this understanding in its final rule.
    Commission Response: The proposal to include such wells under the 
blanket certificate is part of the ``landowner notification'' 
proceeding in Docket No. RM98-17-000. As noted there, the Commission is 
considering expanding the definition of eligible facilities to include 
replacement or observation wells. However, we expressed concern about 
whether and how pipelines should be required to acquire consent from 
the landowner prior to beginning construction.
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
    Comments: El Paso and INGAA suggest that the Commission allow 
pipelines to use the prior notice procedures under Sec. 157.205(b) to 
update or increase the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of a 
lateral when the lateral pressure is less than that of the upstream 
mainline. El Paso states that increasing the MAOP of a lateral 
typically is performed for the purpose of providing additional pressure 
to a distribution customer whose load at a particular delivery point 
has increased over the years to such an extent that, on cold days, the 
existing MAOP of the lateral is insufficient to ensure delivery of all 
of the shipper's volumes. El Paso and INGAA contend that allowing this 
will eliminate an arbitrary distinction between laterals constructed 
under section 7(c) and laterals constructed as eligible facilities 
under the blanket certificate. INGAA notes that any additional capacity 
created would be posted on the pipeline's EBB. Williams, however, 
suggests that Sec. 157.208(f)(2) be rewritten to allow this change 
automatically, instead of under the prior notice procedure.
    Commission Response: Currently, pipelines must file a certificate 
amendment in order to increase the MAOP of laterals constructed under 
case-specific section 7(c) authority (see Sec. 157.20(g), which was 
redesignated Sec. 157.20(f) in the NOPR). However, for laterals 
constructed as eligible facilities under Sec. 157.208 of the blanket 
certificate, pipelines need only file a prior notice to increase the 
MAOP (see Sec. 157.208(f)(2)). We agree that there need not be an 
artificial distinction between updating the MAOP of laterals 
constructed under individual section 7(c) authority and under 
Sec. 157.208 blanket certificate authority. Therefore, we intend to 
modify Sec. 157.208(f)(2) to permit pipelines to follow the prior 
notice procedures in order to increase the MAOP of laterals constructed 
under section 7(c).
    We disagree with Williams suggestion that any increase in lateral 
MAOP be allowed automatically instead of under the prior notice 
procedures. When this section was promulgated in Order No. 234, we 
required prior notice of any intent to change the MAOP because of the 
need for safety and reliability of service. These reasons have not 
changed. Increasing the MAOP of a lateral could have a detrimental 
effect on interconnections along the facility. For example, receipt 
point pressures may no longer be great enough to allow gas to enter the 
lateral. At the other end of the lateral, increased delivery pressures 
may cause problems for delivery customers' existing M&R facilities. For 
these reasons, we will not allow a prospective change in the MAOP to be 
done automatically.
Section 157.202(b)(2)(ii)(B)--Extension of a Main Line
    Several parties seek changes to Sec. 157.202(b)(ii)(B), which 
excludes extensions of mainlines from eligible facility status.
    Comments: El Paso, Enron, and INGAA all propose that the Commission 
modify this section to permit pipelines to construct, as eligible 
facilities, mainline extensions which are designed to receive gas 
supplies from another pipeline. These parties submit that mainline 
extensions, as well as the interconnecting pipe in KN Interstate are no 
different than any supply lateral constructed as eligible facilities.
    El Paso Energy recommends that the Commission revise this section 
so that mainline extensions which enable pipelines to receive gas 
supplies from a gatherer, intrastate pipeline, or interstate pipeline 
would become eligible facilities.
    Commission Response: This is essentially the same argument earlier 
raised and rejected to expand the definition of interconnecting points 
to include any connecting pipeline. For the same reasons, we will not 
expand the definition of eligible facilities to include mainline 
facilities, other than the limited exception for replacements as 
discussed earlier. The Commission excludes mainlines and their 
extensions from the definition of eligible facilities because they 
alter mainline capacity and can have a substantial impact on the rates 
and services a pipeline provides. These facilities are not considered 
the type of routine construction the regulations contemplated for 
automatic

[[Page 26583]]

authorization, without any review by the Commission.
Section 157.202(b)(ii)(D)--Minor Storage Operations
    The NOPR revised Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(ii)(D) to extend the blanket 
authority for tests or other minor storage operations which do not 
increase certificated, including grandfathered, storage capacity, 
deliverability or storage boundary.
    Comments: Market Hub Partners, L.P. (Market Hub Partners) states 
that the Commission must ensure that pipelines that own both storage 
facilities and pipeline facilities are not able to leverage the 
automatic authorizations to give an unfair advantage to the pipelines' 
storage facilities.
    National Fuel supports the proposal to limit the exclusion of 
storage facilities from the definition of eligible facilities in 
Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(ii)(D) because the current definition would exclude 
even an uprising or minor rerouting of a small diameter storage 
pipeline.
    Commission Response: Initially, we modified Sec. 157.202(b)(ii)(D) 
to allow minor changes in storage operations that do not alter the 
certificated capacity, deliverability, or the storage boundary. We did 
not intend this change to allow, for example, pipelines to drill 
additional injection/withdrawal wells automatically for the purpose of 
increasing field deliverability, even though such change would not 
affect the certificated capacity of the storage field.
    We are concerned that ``and'' in the regulation instead of ``or'' 
will create situations for pipelines to test, develop, or utilize an 
underground storage field in any manner, as eligible facilities, so 
long as the action does not increase the certificated storage capacity 
or boundary of a field. Under existing Sec. 157.215, pipelines can 
automatically construct and operate pipeline and compression facilities 
and drill wells for the testing and development of reservoirs, subject 
to specified spending limits. In modifying this regulation, we intended 
to allow minor changes to field operations and facilities, such as 
rerouting or changing storage field lines. We did not intend for 
pipelines to be able to use this section to drill additional wells as 
eligible facilities, even if such wells would not change the capacity 
of a field. As noted above, we are currently exploring the option of 
allowing pipelines to drill replacement or observation wells under 
Sec. 158.208 as part of the landowner notification proceeding in Docket 
No. RM98-17-000. Since we also clarified above that minor storage field 
changes, including rerouting or changing storage lines, can currently 
be done under the blanket certificate, we will change our proposal here 
so that wells must still be drilled under Sec. 157.215. Accordingly, we 
will revise Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(ii)(D) to state:

    A facility required to test, develop or utilize an underground 
storage field or that alters the certificated capacity, 
deliverability, or storage boundary, or a facility required to store 
gas above ground in either a gaseous or liquefied state, or a 
facility used to receive gas from plants manufacturing synthetic gas 
or from plants gasifying liquefied natural gas.
Section 157.202(b)(5)--Small Diameter Laterals
    The NOPR proposed to revise Sec. 157.202(b)(5) to remove the phrase 
``small diameter lateral'' and add, in its place, the words ``small 
diameter supply or delivery lateral'' to further clarify what 
facilities are not considered main line facilities.
    Comments: Williams contends that the Commission should adopt a 
flexible but more definitive description such as replacing ``small'' 
with ``laterals which have a diameter which is equal to or less than 
four-fifths the diameter of the mainline to which it connects or from 
which it extends.''
    Commission Response: We decline to adopt Williams' suggestion to 
modify the definition of ``small diameter lateral.'' The proposed 
regulation makes it clear that lateral lines are eligible facilities 
that can be constructed under Sec. 157.208.
Section 157.202(b)(6)--Miscellaneous Rearrangement
    While the NOPR proposed no changes to Sec. 157.202(b)(6), 
Miscellaneous rearrangement of any facility, we received comments 
suggesting various changes.
    Comments: INGAA seeks clarification that replacements done to 
ensure safety, e.g., when residential, commercial or industrial 
development has encroached on the pipeline, to comply with 
environmental regulations, maintain operational integrity or because of 
erosion, changes in river or stream courses or other forces beyond the 
pipeline's control, would qualify as eligible facilities. Since these 
situations require prompt action, INGAA believes that the list of 
examples should be expanded to include these situations. National Fuel 
shares the same concern.El Paso wants the Commission to expand the 
definition to recognize the range of factors beyond a pipeline's 
control which might require a rearrangement of facilities. El Paso 
believes that the definition should include any forces, including 
natural causes, which are outside a pipeline's control, as well as 
rearrangements conducted at the request of a landowner. El Paso 
contends that this change would increase flexibility and clear-up the 
confusion that exists regarding the applicability of the provision.
    El Paso Energy recommends that the definition be revised as 
follows:

    Miscellaneous rearrangement of any facility means any 
rearrangement of a facility that does not result in any change of 
service rendered by means of the facilities involved, e.g., changes 
in existing field operations or relocation of existing facilities 
when (1) requested by the landowner, (2) when required by highway 
construction, dam construction, erosion, or the expansion or change 
of course of rivers, streams or creeks, or (3) to respond to other 
forces beyond the certificate holder's control when necessary to 
ensure safety, comply with environmental regulations or maintain the 
operational integrity of the certificate holder's facilities.

    Great Lakes argues that off ROW replacement facilities should be 
allowed under this section. According to Great Lakes, topographical 
changes due to floods, landslides and other naturally occurring events 
should qualify under this section. The Commission should clarify that 
construction resulting from acts of nature are authorized.
    Commission Response: We intend that ``other similar reasons'' for 
miscellaneous rearrangements includes such reasons as maintaining 
operational integrity or problems due to natural causes such as changes 
in river or stream courses or other natural forces beyond the 
pipeline's control. We are excluding encroachment of residential, 
commercial or industrial development in the definition of miscellaneous 
rearrangement of facilities because it involves landowner issues. These 
issues are better addressed in the proceeding in Docket No. RM98-17-
000, which discusses many landowner issues in detail. Rearrangement in 
these instances still require appropriate NEPA review. We will revise 
Sec. 157.202(b)(6) accordingly.
Section 157.202(b)(10)--Sales Taps/Delivery Points
    The NOPR modified Sec. 157.202(b)(10) to remove the words ``Sales 
tap(s)'' and add in their place, the words ``Delivery points.'' The 
NOPR also proposed to amend the related Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(ii)(E) to 
remove the words ``Sales Tap'' and add, in their place, the words 
``Delivery points under Sec. 157.211.'' To implement the change to 
these sections, the NOPR proposed removing existing Sec. 157.212--
Changes in delivery points--and revising Sec. 157.211--Sales taps--to 
become new Sec. 157.211--Delivery points.

[[Page 26584]]

    Comments: INGAA contends that the definition in Sec. 157.202(b)(10) 
limits pipelines because it does not include the pipeline associated 
with the delivery point. INGAA is concerned that the definition limits 
construction only to facilities at the actual point of delivery, and 
not to a lateral facility extending to or from those points, which 
drastically reduces the usefulness of this option. It argues that since 
delivery points are not installed without any associated piping of some 
length, the limited definition will reduce a pipeline's flexibility to 
add new customers, such as electric generation, to the grid, because 
any such addition will require a section 7 filing.
    Duke Energy and Great Lakes propose that the Commission clarify the 
regulation to avoid confusion so that heaters, minor gas conditioning 
facilities, treatment, odorization, and similar equipment that may be 
required on delivery facility installations is covered by the phrase 
``appurtenant facilities''.
    Great Lakes states that this section should also permit new 
delivery points for existing customers, not just to attach new 
customers.
    National Fuel states that the definition in Sec. 157.202(b)(10) 
should be changed to replace ``any customer'' with ``any party.'' In 
many cases, the owner of the facility to be interconnected with the 
pipeline is not a customer of the pipeline, but another entity 
transporting gas for the customer of the pipeline.
    Commission Response: Commenters are concerned that the new 
definition of delivery point either changes the way such facilities can 
be constructed or changes or limits the type of facilities, i.e., 
related delivery laterals, that can be constructed. Currently, 
pipelines must file a prior notice to construct a sales tap under 
Sec. 157.211 or a delivery point under Sec. 157.212. Since the related 
delivery lateral is considered an eligible facility, pipelines 
currently can construct this connecting line automatically under 
Sec. 157.208, subject to the spending limits in that section. These 
laterals are eligible facilities because they are specifically excluded 
from the definition of main line in Sec. 157.202(b)(5).
    The Final Rule creates a new Sec. 157.211 to encompass the 
construction of all delivery points, rather than have two confusing 
sections to choose between. New Sec. 157.211 allows pipelines to 
construct virtually any delivery point for both new and existing 
customers, with the exception of bypass facilities, on an automatic 
basis, subject to the spending limits in Sec. 157.208. However, the 
authority for pipelines to construct related delivery laterals remains 
unchanged, i.e., they are eligible facilities. Prospectively, a 
pipeline will be able to construct both the delivery point and the 
related upstream delivery lateral on an automatic basis, subject to the 
limitations in Secs. 157.208 and 157.211. Thus, for projects that meet 
the spending limits and do not involve bypass, pipelines are relieved 
of the burden of making an upfront filing prior to constructing the 
delivery facilities.
    As to Duke Energy and Great Lakes proposal to clarify the 
definition of ``appurtenant facilities'' in Sec. 157.202(b)(10) to 
include minor gas conditioning and similar facilities, we agree and 
will modify the section. We also agree that the reference to ``any 
customer'' should be modified to refer to ``any party'' to recognize 
the reality of transportation today.

Section 157.203--Blanket Certification.

    The NOPR proposed minor editorial changes.
    Comments: The Council questions whether the issuance of a blanket 
certificate under this subpart constitutes an ``undertaking'' as 
defined under the NHPA.
    Commission Response: The creation of the blanket certificate 
program was covered by the environmental assessment issued in 1981, 
which concluded that projects which meet the standard environmental 
conditions would not have a significant effect on the human 
environment. The blanket certificate only authorizes projects which 
adhere to these procedures which, among other things, protect historic 
properties. The Commission determined that projects which were required 
to adhere to these procedures would not have an effect on historic 
properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 
Therefore, while these individual projects may be undertakings, they do 
not require the Council's comment.

Section 157.205--Notice Procedures

Section 157.205(d)--Publication of Notice of Request
    The NOPR proposed to require that the Commission would issue a 
notice within ten days of the filing of an application in redesignated 
Sec. 157.205(d). Process Gas Consumers requests that, among other 
things, the Commission require pipelines provide more specific notice 
directly to its customers, as specified in the discussion of Sec. 157.9 
above. As stated in our response in Sec. 157.9, we believe the existing 
notice requirements provide sufficient opportunity for all parties to 
receive adequate notice of filings with the Commission.
Section 157.205(e)--Protests
    The NOPR proposed to amend redesignated Sec. 157.205(e)(2) to add 
that parties protesting an application in a prior notice filing 
specifically set out the reasons and rationale for their protest.
    Comments: The American Public Gas Association states that the 
request is reasonable if the potential protestor has all the filed 
material well before the protest deadline. It argues that it is 
critical that protestors have the relevant data and the time to analyze 
the data if they are to file substantive protests.
    Commission Response: The NOPR proposed a number of changes, most of 
which are designed to speed up the processing time for certificate 
filings by requiring pipelines to file substantially complete 
applications or face the prospect of having such filings rejected. We 
note that prior notice applications are usually non-controversial and 
involve routine activities. It is incumbent upon the pipeline to 
include all relevant material with the application to ensure that the 
application will not be rejected. The extended time frame for pipelines 
to supply voluminous or hard to reproduce materials generally applies 
to significant transmission facilities that require a separate section 
7(c) application. Thus, prior notice filings, by their nature, should 
be substantially complete when filed, which should allow ample time for 
interested parties to timely intervene.
    In the event that a potential protestor believes that an 
application does not contain sufficient information for it to justify a 
protest, it should explain specifically what information is missing and 
how that affects its ability to protest. If such a situation were to 
occur, the proposal in the NOPR is not intended to deprive any party of 
the opportunity to point out the defects in an application.
Section 157.205(g)--Withdrawal or dismissal of protest
    The NOPR proposed in redesignated Sec. 157.205(g) to allow the 
Director of OPR to dismiss any protest to a prior notice filing which 
does not raise a substantive issue and fails to provide any specific 
reason or rationale for the objection.
    Comments: AGA wants the Commission to clarify that protests 
alleging that the pipeline's activity will result in a bypass of the 
LDC will not be dismissed for lack of substance. AGA

[[Page 26585]]

proposes that Sec. 157.205(g) and the related Sec. 375.307(a)(10) be 
revised to state that any protest that alleges bypass will not be 
dismissed. AGA suggests that the following language be added at the end 
of each regulation:

    However, the Director of the Office of Pipeline Regulation may 
not dismiss a protest that alleges bypass. Such a protest will 
subject the request of the certificate holder to the full procedural 
requirements of the Natural Gas Act under section 7 authorization 
for the particular activity.

    American Public Gas Association expresses two concerns: (1) That 
the term ``substantive'' is too vague and gives the Director of OPR 
excessive discretion; and (2) that the relationship of a dismissal of a 
protest and the effect of a protest is unclear. APGA states that it is 
not clear that dismissal of a protest prevents conversion of the 
proceeding to NGA section 7 status. APGA suggests that the Commission 
forgo these changes.
    Duke Energy states that the regulation should be clarified so that 
a notice of dismissal of protests is issued within the 30 day 
resolution period. Duke Energy contends that this will eliminate the 
need for any further order and helps ensure that the prior notice 
process cannot be used by protestors seeking other unrelated 
consideration from the pipeline.
    Indicated Shippers contends that the proposal inappropriately 
delegates one of the Commission's most fundamental responsibilities 
under the NGA to the Director of OPR. It contends that all interested 
parties must be given a meaningful opportunity to present their 
positions to the Commission, including the ability to seek a hearing. 
The Director of OPR must not be placed in position of establishing 
policy and precedent. Indicated Shippers and NGSA both argue that 
dismissal of a protest would effectively permit a prior notice to 
become effective long before the Commission could act on a protesting 
party's appeal or motion for stay of the dismissal. According to 
Indicated Shippers, if the Director of OPR keeps this authority, the 
Commission needs to amend Sec. 375.307(a) because it only authorizes 
action on uncontested filings. If a protest is filed, a prior notice is 
contested. Market Hub Partners states that protestors should not have 
their protest rejected because of deficiencies in pipeline filings or 
because of delays in noticing filings.
    El Paso contends that the standard for determining which protests 
will be dismissed is vague and expresses concern with how it will be 
applied. El Paso requests that the Commission clarify that protests 
which merely raise conclusory allegations without specific factual 
support may be dismissed by the Director. For example, protests which 
allege unfair competition or undue discrimination without support 
should be dismissed. El Paso states that this clarification is 
necessary to assure that protestors cannot delay projects by merely 
raising arguments which lack factual support or legal merit.
    INGAA and El Paso recommend that Sec. 157.205(g) be revised as 
follows:

    The Director of OPR may make a determination whether protests 
raise a substantive issue or set forth specific reasons and 
rationale for the objection, and dismiss the protest for failure to 
either raise a substantive issue or set forth specific reasons and 
rationale for the objection.

    INGAA states that the authority to dismiss protests for either 
reason will give the Director broader discretion to dismiss protests 
while still applying the standards set forth.
    Commission Response: The intent of the proposed regulation is to 
allow the Director of OPR to dismiss any unsubstantiated protest to a 
prior notice application. Protests that raise legitimate issues will 
not be dismissed. However, ``no issue'' protests, those that offer no 
support for the protest, are subject to dismissal. For example, AGA 
requests that any protest alleging bypass not be dismissed. Simply 
stating an objection is not enough reason to impede the progress of a 
prior notice filing. However, if, for example, an allegation of bypass 
is accompanied by specific reasons and rationale for the objection, 
then such a protest will not be dismissed. A protestor does not 
necessarily have to prove that its allegation is true, but it does have 
to substantiate its objection. This will not deprive any party of an 
opportunity to present its position to the Commission for 
consideration. We reiterate, the dismissal pertains only to protests 
that do not raise a substantive issue and fail to provide any specific 
detailed reason or rationale for the objection.
    As stated, APGA contends that it is not clear how the dismissal of 
a protest will effect the conversion of the proceeding to a NGA section 
7 proceeding. Also, Duke requests that the Commission clarify that the 
protest will be dismissed during the 30 day resolution period. We 
clarify that the Director of OPR will dismiss an unsubstantiated 
protest within 10 days of its filing. However, we will continue to 
require that the 30 day reconciliation period run for the entire 30 
days to allow the protesting party time to pursue other alternatives.

Section 157.206--Standard Conditions

Section 157.206(b)--Environmental Compliance
    The NOPR proposed to create a lead-in to the environmental 
conditions of subpart F in redesignated Sec. 157.206(b) to indicate 
that the conditions apply only to activities under the blanket 
certificate that involve ground disturbance or changes to operational 
air and noise emissions.
    Comments: Enron and Williams agree with the proposed clarification, 
but request that it be codified in Sec. 157.206(b).
    Sempra Energy states that it cannot imagine a situation in which 
blanket activity will not ``involve ground disturbance or changes to 
operational air and noise emissions.'' It contends that any ambiguity 
will provide pipelines with incentive to characterize projects as non-
ground disturbing to eliminate the notice and protest process and 
construct facilities. Sempra Energy proposes that the Commission 
either: (1) eliminate the proposed revision; or (2) clarify that 
standard environmental conditions continue to apply to all 
construction, installation, removal, re-work, or repair of facilities.
    Commission Response: We agree with Enron and Williams and will 
modify Sec. 157.206(b) to reflect this clarification. As to Sempra 
Energy's concern, we reiterate that these conditions apply to all 
activities performed under the blanket certificate, regardless of cost. 
Thus, they apply to facilities constructed under the automatic and 
prior notice procedures. However, we will clarify that the standard 
environmental conditions continue to apply to all construction, 
installation, removal, re-work, or repair of facilities performed under 
the blanket certificate.
Section 157.206(b)(5)
    The NOPR proposed to revise redesignated Sec. 157.206(b)(5) to 
bring it into line with current usage concerning limitations on 
compressor station noise levels.
    Comments: Duke Energy, El Paso Energy, INGAA, and Williams all want 
the Commission to clarify whether any change to a single compressor 
unit or adding a new unit requires the noise level of the entire 
compressor station to be reduced to 55 dB(A). They are concerned about 
the terms ``modified, upgraded, or uprated.'' These parties contend 
that the language implies that almost any modifications to individual 
compressor units will force other previously approved units in the same 
station to meet the 55 dB(A) noise limits, even if no modifications to 
these

[[Page 26586]]

units are performed. They believe such a result would be at odds with 
current Commission policy, which requires pipelines to maintain 
compressor stations at existing levels when any changes are made. These 
parties request that the Commission clarify the 55 dB(A) noise level is 
applicable only to the individual unit being added, modified, upgraded, 
or uprated and not to the entire compressor station which was 
previously installed.
    Commission Response: Our intent was to have the noise limit apply 
to the new or modified compressor units. We will modify 
Sec. 157.206(b)(5) to reflect this intent.
Section 157.206(c)--Commencement
    The NOPR proposed to revise redesignated Sec. 157.206(c) to allow 
for facilities to be completed ``and made available for service'' 
instead of ``in actual operation'' within one year of 
authorization.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See the related discussion of a similar change in 
Sec. 157.20(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: El Paso Energy and INGAA agree with the proposal, but 
request that the annual report required in Sec. 157.208(e)(2) be 
modified to reflect the change here.
    Commission Response: The Commission is concerned with the actual 
completion date of projects constructed under the blanket certificate 
for, among other things, environmental review purposes. However, we are 
also concerned with the date service commences. Changing the reporting 
requirements so that facilities will not be reported until they are 
``available for service'' could result in delays in both reporting and 
review. While facilities could be ``completed and made available for 
service'' within the specified timetable, service may not commence at 
that time if the end-user/shipper is not ready to flow gas. Since the 
annual report in Sec. 157.208(e)(2) currently requires the actual date 
that construction was completed, we will modify the report to also 
require the date service commenced.

Section 157.208--Construction, Acquisition, Operation, and 
Miscellaneous Rearrangement of Facilities.

Section 157.208(a) and (b)
    Consistent with our proposed change to the definition of an 
eligible facility in Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(i), the NOPR clarified that 
Secs. 157.208(a) and (b) will now include certain replacement 
facilities that do not qualify under revised Sec. 2.55(b).
    Comments: INGAA requests clarification that rearrangements of 
storage lines will also be included in this section as the practical 
process is the same whether a pipeline is rearranging mainline pipe or 
storage pipe.
    Commission Response: It appears that INGAA wants a clarification of 
the definition of miscellaneous rearrangement of any facility. The 
definition does not specifically limit the rearrangement to mainline 
versus lateral or storage lines. It limits the reasons for the 
rearrangement. Storage lines, as well as mainlines can be rearranged as 
eligible facilities under this section, so long as the rearrangement 
qualifies under the definition in Sec. 157.202(b)(6).
Section 157.208(c)(9)
    The NOPR proposed to amend redesignated Sec. 157.208(c)(9) to add 
the specification that a copy of consultations for the Endangered 
Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal 
Zone Management Act be included in any prior notice filing made under 
this section.
    Comments: The Council asks the Commission to describe what 
constitutes ``clearance'' and how can it be obtained by the certificate 
holder given the Commission's nondelegable responsibility.
    INGAA states that the preamble to the NOPR requires a copy of 
consultations, while the regulation requires a copy of the clearance 
received at the time a prior notice is filed. INGAA wants the 
Commission to clarify whether the final clearance is required or 
whether just the copy of consultations is required. If the final 
clearances are required, INGAA contends that this does not reflect the 
realities of dealing with the various permitting agencies involved. 
While understanding the Commission's need to verify that clearances 
have been obtained before the prior notice period runs, INGAA suggests 
that pipelines file requests for clearances at the time of the prior 
notice and supplement with actual clearances when received. Enron and 
Great Lakes raise the same concern and request that actual clearances 
be filed within 30 days. If clearances are not received by the close of 
the protest period, the Commission could deem the prior notice 
protested. INGAA proposes the following language:

    A copy of the clearance received or the request for clearances 
for Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act 
and the Coastal Zone Management Act shall be included in any prior 
notice filing. If a request for clearance is filed, then a copy of 
the final clearance must also be filed, when received. Failure to 
file the final copy by the end of the protest period will deem the 
prior notice filing protested.

    Commission Response: As to the Council's request, we will change 
the word ``clearances'' to ``agreements.'' We have already addressed 
the issue of delegation when we said that projects which comply with 
the standard conditions do not constitute undertakings which would 
affect historic properties.
     As to INGAA's request, we clarify that the reference to a copy of 
consultations means a final agency agreements. Prior notice filings, by 
definition, are for those projects on which the company could begin 
construction within 45 days from the filing date. As a result there is 
no justification for allowing the company to file a prior notice 
without already having the agreements.
Section 157.208(e)
    Section 157.208(e) details the annual reporting requirements for 
facilities completed under this section. The NOPR proposed to revise 
this section to require complete reports only for facilities 
constructed under the automatic authority conferred by Sec. 157.208(a).
    Comments: INGAA requests that the Commission clarify whether 
pipelines are required to identify facilities constructed under prior 
notice procedures and the cost levels of such facilities in their 
annual report in Sec. 157.208(e).
    Commission Response: Pipelines are still required to identify such 
facilities and to provide the complete cost information required in 
Sec. 157.208(e)(3). However, because the prior notice application 
includes all the information regarding the facility, the only 
identification necessary would be the docket number of the prior notice 
that authorized construction. We note that this action reduces the 
reporting burden on all pipelines.

Section 157.209--Temporary Compression Facilities

    The NOPR proposed to create a new Sec. 157.209 to allow blanket 
certificate holders to install temporary compression for the limited 
purpose of maintenance or repair of existing permanent compressor 
unit(s).
    Comments: El Paso Energy and INGAA want the Commission to clarify 
that pipelines can operate temporary compressors occasionally for 
maintenance purposes to ensure that the compressors will perform up to 
specifications when needed, including complying with the 55 dB(A) noise 
level. INGAA argues that, in cases of

[[Page 26587]]

routine maintenance, pipelines should be able to install a temporary 
engine while repairing a permanent engine, or install a spare engine in 
place of the engine that is removed for repair. INGAA recommends that 
these activities be permitted as maintenance under this section.
    Commission Response: We will grant the clarification. It is 
consistent with the intent of this section and will help ensure the 
reliability of certificated entitlements in the event of compressor 
problems.

Section 157.211--Sales Taps

    The NOPR proposed to redefine this section as Delivery points and 
provide for automatic and prior notice authorization to acquire, 
construct, replace, modify, or construct any delivery point.
Construction of Delivery Points
    Comments: Enron and INGAA state that the NOPR describes receipt 
points as being constructed under Sec. 157.211, while the proposed 
regulations indicate that receipt points are eligible facilities to be 
constructed under Sec. 157.208.
    Commission Response: The Commission agrees with Enron and INGAA 
that the intent is for receipt points to be constructed automatically 
as eligible facilities under Sec. 157.208, subject to the spending 
limits. Section 157.211 would cover receipt points that prospectively 
will function as delivery points as a result of unbundling. The ``and 
vice versa'' in the preamble to the NOPR was inadvertent. We clarify 
that delivery points will not actually be converted into receipt points 
under Sec. 157.211.
Definition of End-User
    In Sec. 157.211(a)(2), the NOPR required prior notice of the 
construction of a delivery point where the gas is being ``delivered to, 
or for the account of, an end-user that is currently being served by an 
LDC.''
    Comments: National Fuel requests that the Commission revise 
Sec. 157.211(a)(2)(i) to read instead where the gas is being 
``delivered directly to an end user'' to clarify that delivery into an 
LDC facility that feeds an end user could be undertaken automatically 
under Sec. 157.211(a)(1).
    Commission Response: In a situation where a pipeline delivers gas 
directly to an LDC, which then redelivers the gas to an end-user, the 
LDC performs a transportation function and is not bypassed in such a 
transaction. Accordingly, under that situation, automatic authorization 
is appropriate.
Prior Notice Requirement for Bypass
    Comments: AGA and Sempra Energy note that the regulations do not 
specifically mention ``bypass'' and that a prior notice is only 
required when a customer is ``currently being served'' by an LDC. AGA 
believes that ``currently being served'' is sufficiently ambiguous that 
pipelines could evade the prior notice requirements, even where an LDC 
is being bypassed. AGA suggests that the Commission change 
Sec. 157.211(a)(2)(i) to add: ``currently being served'' includes 
circumstances where the customer is attached to the LDC even if it is 
not currently taking gas. AGA also requests that the Commission modify 
Sec. 157.205 to require that the pipeline notify both the LDC and the 
state utility commission of any bypass activity. AGA also requests that 
the Commission define bypass to include situations where the pipeline 
proposes to serve a customer within the LDCs' service area, even if the 
LDC previously has not served that customer.
    On the other hand, Process Gas Consumers (PGC) argues that the 
Commission should eliminate the use of prior notice for all delivery 
points, including new delivery points for end users served by LDCs. PGC 
states that the Commission's policy is well established and consistent 
with principles of nondiscriminatory access. According to PGC, end 
users and LDCs are equally entitled to new delivery points, including 
ones that bypass traditional suppliers. If a pipeline violates a 
Commission policy, PGC states that it is subject to a complaint under 
NGA section 5. PGC further states that if the customer violates any 
contract with an existing supplier, it faces a contract remedy. PGC 
also argues that direct service to an end user should also be automatic 
if the contract has expired or will expire by the time service from the 
new delivery point commences.
    PGC also wants the definition of delivery point in 
Sec. 157.202(b)(10) expanded to include new and additional service to a 
customer, whether or not at the same location. For example, an 
industrial user installing a second plant should be entitled to treat 
the new installation as new service and should be able to obtain a 
delivery tap automatically. The end user should not be subject to 
protests and delays because it continues to receive service for the 
remainder of its operations from its existing LDC. New service, beyond 
the existing LDC service should entitle the end user to obtain a 
delivery tap under the automatic procedures.
    Commission Response: The Commission has previously determined that 
a bypass does not occur when a pipeline proposes direct service to a 
new customer that is not currently being served by an LDC under an LDC 
contract.23 The purpose of 157.211(a)(2)(i) is to provide 
notice to an LDC of a potential bypass. This is consistent with our 
current bypass policy, which we apply on a case by case basis, and see 
no basis to change that policy. This policy requires that a nexus be 
shown between the LDC's obligation to purchase service from the 
pipeline and the pipeline's proposed service to the end-user. Our 
policy is not to engage in speculation as to an LDC's market, nor 
second guess end-users'' choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See K N Interstate Gas Transmission Company, 85 FERC para. 
61,327 (1998), Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 71 FERC para. 
61,020 (1995), and Mojave Pipeline Company, 69 FERC para. 61,921 
(1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated, PGC argues that adding delivery points to serve end-
users should be allowed under the automatic authorization. We disagree. 
We see no reason to modify our policy to provide an LDC currently 
providing service to an existing customer notice of a potential bypass. 
To the extent that a pipeline wishes to add a delivery point for a 
customer where the affected contract with the LDC has expired, the 
pipeline may add the delivery point under the automatic authorization. 
However, the existing firm contract must expire prior to the 
construction of new delivery facilities in order not to constitute a 
bypass.
    Further, we note that the regulation requires prior notice whenever 
the facilities are constructed to serve a customer currently being 
served by an LDC. This includes a delivery point to provide additional 
volumes to that customer. We believe that the LDC should have notice 
that such facilities are proposed to be built.
CD Reductions
    Comments: AGA, the Joint Consumer Advocates,24 and 
Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. (Rochester) urge the Commission to 
permit LDCs to reduce their contract demand to the extent pipelines 
bypass their facilities. The current policy predicates any CD reduction 
on a contractual nexus between the capacity and the bypassing LDC 
customer. However, these parties contend that LDCs often do not have 
service agreements with their customers

[[Page 26588]]

and most do not deliver specific quantities to end-users. Instead, LDCs 
provide retail service for whatever requirements the customer needs. 
The LDC tariffs become the contract when service commences. Moreover, 
they claim that the Commission's standard is overly restrictive and 
fails to reflect current market realities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Joint Consumer Advocates consist of the Pennsylvania 
Office of Consumer Affairs, the Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate, 
and the West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission Response: In Order No. 636, the Commission stated that 
it would consider requests by LDCs for relief from pipeline bypass. 
Where an LDC could show a nexus between the bypass and the costs at 
issue, the Commission stated that it would consider reducing the LDC's 
contract demand and reservation charges.25 Determining if CD 
reductions are justified is dependent on the facts and circumstances in 
each particular case. Any challenges to the Commission's current policy 
should be made on a case by case basis. The parties have not provided 
any compelling reason that would warrant the Commission's changing its 
current policy in the context of this rulemaking proceeding. We note 
that the proposed regulation keeps the existing policy in place, so if 
a prior notice is protested on the issue of bypass, these points can be 
examined as they are now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Texas Gas Transmission Corp., 70 FERC para. 61,207 
(1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tariff Must Permit Addition of Delivery Point
    Comments: PGC also seeks to have the Commission eliminate the 
requirement in Secs. 157.211(a)(1)(ii)and (a)(2)(iii) that the 
certificate holder's tariff does not prohibit addition of new delivery 
points. PGC contends that since Order No. 636, no pipeline's tariff 
should prevent the construction of delivery points. The proposed 
language is so broad that, notwithstanding creditworthiness provisions, 
pipelines could refuse to construct for policy or other reasons, which 
PGC argues is against open access provisions.
    Commission Response: A pipeline's tariff sets the parameters under 
which it will construct delivery points. Any construction of new 
delivery points need to be consistent with the terms of the pipeline's 
tariff. Pipelines cannot structure their tariffs to impede constructing 
delivery points and are required to provide non-discriminatory, open 
access service. Part of this service is constructing delivery points 
for shippers. While we never said that pipelines had to build 
facilities, if a pipeline does build facilities for one customer, it 
must build facilities for other similarly situated customers on a non-
discriminatory basis.26 We recognize that there may be 
certain economic parameters in a tariff, including creditworthiness, 
that shippers may need to comply with in order for a pipeline to 
construct a new delivery point. However, a pipeline must have a 
legitimate reason not to construct facilities for shippers that request 
them. While we will not eliminate the requirement in 
Secs. 157.211(a)(1)(ii) and 157.211(a)(2)(iii) that ``the certificate 
holder's tariff does not prohibit the addition of new delivery 
points,'' pipelines must not use their tariffs as a shield when they 
are requested to construct facilities. Shippers that believe that they 
have been unfairly denied a new or additional delivery point can file a 
complaint with the Commission detailing the adverse 
action.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Missouri Gas Energy v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company, 75 FERC para. 61,166 at 61,550 (1996).
    \27\ See Arcadian Corporation v. Southern Natural Gas Company, 
55 FERC para. 61,207 (1991), reh'g 61 FERC para. 61,183 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior Notice Requirement for Full Pipelines
    Comments: According to APGA, attaching new customers to a full or 
nearly full pipeline potentially affects the operating flexibility and 
service to all existing firm customers. APGA does not object to 
construction of new delivery points for existing customers where 
overall pipeline firm obligations are not increased. However, before 
new customers are added to a pipeline, APGA contends that there should 
be prior notice and opportunity to protest, because the quality of 
existing service is at issue when new customers are added.
    Commission Response: APGA wants to limit the automatic construction 
of delivery points to existing customers, not new customers being added 
to the system because of the potential service impact on others. One of 
the purposes of the blanket certificate is to expedite construction of 
minor facilities that will not have a significant impact on ratepayers. 
This is accomplished in part by limiting the cost of certain facilities 
and requiring that service through such facilities is provided within 
existing certificated volumes. However, the Commission recognized that 
the blanket certificate issued under part 284 certificates 
transportation of gas using available capacity on a first-come, first-
serve basis. In other words, transportation provided under a part 284 
blanket certificate is within certificated volumes and pipelines 
holding a part 157 certificate are authorized to construct any eligible 
facilities to provide transportation authorized under a part 284 
blanket certificate. Thus, nothing prevents a pipeline from 
constructing new delivery points in accordance with this section to 
accommodate additional service to any customer, so long as the service 
is supported by a related transportation agreement under part 284. 
However, pipelines cannot contract for service that depends on firm 
capacity reserved for others.
Meter Facilities
    Comments: Williams suggests that Sec. 157.211(a)(1) be revised to 
recognize situations where a replacement or modification to meter 
facilities involves a reduction in measurement capacity to accommodate 
the need for greater accuracy. This would avoid confusion when a 
customer's load is reduced at one delivery point, but there is no 
overall reduction in customers total capacity.
    Commission Response This section already allows pipelines to 
``modify'' any delivery point, which would apply to the situation 
Williams describes.
Lateral Associated with Delivery Points
    Comments: Great Lakes states that the new definition of delivery 
point precludes construction of associated lateral lines. According to 
Great Lakes, this is a step backwards since certain limited-length 
lateral lines can now be constructed as part of the delivery point 
prior notice procedure. Great Lakes contends that the Commission should 
allow lateral lines associated with new delivery points to be 
constructed on a self-implementing basis, unless bypass is involved.
    Commission Response: We addressed this argument in our discussion 
of Sec. 157.202(b)(10). There we explained that the delivery point 
itself and related facilities can be constructed under Sec. 157.211, 
while the connecting lateral would qualify as an eligible facility and 
generally be constructed automatically under Sec. 157.208.

Section 157.215  Underground Storage Testing and Development.

    This section provides automatic authorization, subject to certain 
conditions, for the construction and operation of pipeline and 
compression facilities to be used for the testing and development of 
underground reservoirs for the possible storage of gas.
    The NOPR proposed to require the certificate holder to identify the 
date construction began in revised Sec. 157.215(b)(1)(iii).
    Comments: INGAA and National Fuel propose that the section be 
revised to

[[Page 26589]]

reflect the Commission's current policy, which allows pipelines to 
acquire facilities and recognizes that they can currently drill 
injection/withdrawal and observation wells when testing and developing 
storage fields.
    Petal Gas Storage Company (Petal) states that the Commission should 
clarify that the scope of the blanket certificate allows for the 
construction of salt dome storage caverns under the automatic and prior 
notice provisions of Sec. 157.208. Alternatively, if both the 
construction and operation of a new salt dome cavern currently requires 
formal section 7(c) authorization, Petal argues that the Commission 
should at least permit the construction of the cavern (drilling and 
leaching) and installation of related facilities (flow lines) under 
blanket authorization, while operation of the additional facilities is 
considered in a separate section 7(c). If the Commission does grant 
either of these requests, the Commission should clarify that salt dome 
storage facilities are included within the scope of storage facilities 
eligible for automatic authorization under Sec. 157.215, or create a 
new provision to allow for automatic authorization for certain 
activities, such as drilling a well, leaching, and testing a cavern, 
that are necessary to develop a salt dome storage cavern.
    Commission Response: We agree with INGAA that specifically 
including well work and acquisition of facilities would clarify the 
scope and intent of this section. We will modify Sec. 157.215(a) 
accordingly. We note that whatever policy might be adopted in the 
landowner notification proceeding in Docket No. RM98-17-000 would apply 
to any construction under the blanket certificate, including this 
section.
    We do not agree with Petal about automatic or prior notice 
authorization for the construction and development of solution-mined 
salt cavern storage. Construction, testing, and development of 
conventional storage fields (depleted gas or oil field and aquifer) 
generally requires more than three years for different testing and 
development phases to verify various storage parameters. Moreover, a 
conventional storage field developed pursuant to this authorization 
cannot be placed in operation to render storage services in interstate 
commerce without further Commission evaluation and authorization.
    In contrast to a conventional storage field development, all 
aspects of a solution-mined underground gas storage facility, which 
will be created through the planned leaching of a naturally bedded or 
domal salt formation, is designed before drilling and leaching. This 
includes selecting an appropriate site, physically developing the 
cavern and testing and commissioning the cavern. It also involves 
environmental impacts different than those related to the construction, 
testing, and development of conventional storage fields. Therefore, 
certification of salt cavern storage facilities is more similar to 
construction of mainline pipeline transportation facilities than to the 
development of a conventional underground storage facility. This 
section will not provide for either automatic or prior notice 
authorization for the construction and development of solution-mined 
salt cavern storage.

Section 157.216 Abandonment

Section 157.216(a)
    The NOPR proposed a new Sec. 157.216(a)(1) to specifically 
reference that receipt point facilities are eligible for automatic 
abandonment authorization under the subpart F blanket certificate.
    The NOPR also proposed to expand the automatic authority under 
Sec. 157.216 to allow abandonment of: (1) Delivery points used to 
provide firm and interruptible service, if the points are unused for 12 
months and no longer under a firm contract, and (2) any eligible 
facility constructed under automatic authority, subject to customer 
consent.
Customer Consent and Automatic Authorization
    Comments: INGAA is concerned about the requirement to obtain 
written consent from all customers who have received service in the 
past 12 months. Abandonment of a tie-over on a mainline or some 
facilities at an interconnection with another pipeline could be very 
burdensome because of the sheer number of customers that could be 
affected. INGAA proposes to allow abandonment of eligible facilities if 
it will not terminate or degrade service to such existing customers. 
This protects customers without an unnecessary administrative burden.
    National Fuel states that receipt and delivery points should 
qualify for automatic abandonment if affected customers consent, 
regardless of whether the facility was used in the past 12 months.
    AGA wants the Commission to clarify that primary delivery points 
under contracts are not eligible for automatic abandonment, even if 
they have not been used in the past 12 months.
    Indicated Shippers and NGSA state that the proposals to allow 
pipelines to abandon receipt points automatically and by prior notice 
could permit pipelines to abuse the ability to abandon service to a 
point. They suggest that the abandonment of all supply facilities be 
subject to prior notice, regardless of cost. They contend that without 
prior notice, upstream suppliers and other parties behind the 
facilities could become stranded, causing shut-in and possible loss of 
reserves. According to Indicated Shippers and NGSA, the proposed 
written consent applies only to transportation customers, not upstream 
supply parties, including producers, pooling parties, balancing parties 
and point operators that may also deliver gas into the subject 
facilities. These parties may have Operational Balancing Agreements 
(OBA) or other agreements with the pipeline that conform to a pro forma 
agreement in the pipeline's FERC Gas Tariff. Given the cost level for 
automatic abandonment, Indicated Shippers requests that the Commission 
clarify how it intends to determine the cost of eligible facilities 
serving a supply function for purposes of automatic abandonment. 
Indicated Shippers and NGSA argue that prior notice for such facilities 
protects against inappropriate abandonment of jurisdictional 
facilities.
    Both Indicated Shippers and NGSA request that the Commission 
clarify that the term ``customers'' (for purposes of abandonment under 
the blanket certificate) includes: (1) Upstream producers and other 
suppliers that (a) have confirmed a nomination at the point in the 
previous 12 months or (b) are not currently using the facilities, but 
have within the previous 12 months made a request to the pipeline in 
writing for firm or interruptible service using specific supply 
facilities; (2) point operators; (3) gatherers; (4) pooling parties; or 
(5) OBA parties. Indicated Shippers argues that the Commission should 
require written consent of these affected upstream parties in addition 
to the capacity holders in the facilities.
    These parties contend that without this clarification, the new 
regulations could be interpreted to allow a pipeline to abandon those 
facilities using prior notice without the consent of the affected 
parties behind the upstream supply facilities, if those parties do not 
ship gas from the point under their own transportation agreements with 
the pipeline. Unless upstream parties are considered customers, even a 
protest would be illusory since consent is only needed from 
``customers''.
    Commission Response: INGAA believes that seeking customer consent 
will be administratively burdensome if numerous customers use a 
facility proposed to be abandoned. INGAA

[[Page 26590]]

suggests that abandonment be allowed as long as it will not terminate 
or degrade service to existing customers. However, INGAA does not 
specify how it will determine that abandonment of any facility will not 
terminate or degrade existing service.
    It is the Commission's statutory responsibility to ensure that 
abandonment of any facility is permitted by the present or future 
public convenience and necessity. In order to meet this responsibility, 
the Commission will require pipelines to demonstrate that service will 
not be degraded or terminated, or that service is no longer needed 
through a specific facility by providing consent from customers that 
have received service during the past 12 months. While there may be 
certain instances where this requirement could create a burden, we 
believe that our statutory responsibility under NGA section 7(b) 
outweighs any such potential administrative inconvenience.
    National Fuel argues that abandonment should be automatic for 
receipt and delivery points, if the affected customers agree, 
regardless of when the facilities were last used. National Fuel can use 
Sec. 157.216(a)(2) to abandon receipt points automatically, since they 
are eligible facilities, as long as it has all the customers' consent, 
regardless of whether the receipt point was used in the past 12 months. 
However, delivery points are not eligible facilities because of 
potential bypass situations and therefore, are not covered by 
Sec. 157.216(a)(2). The Commission determined that expanding the 
automatic abandonment authority was appropriate only if the customer 
who used the facilities during the preceding 12 months consented to 
such action. Therefore, we will continue to require a prior notice 
filing for delivery point facilities which were in use during the last 
12 month period specifically because we are concerned with the 
potential for existing customers to lose access to facilities. We 
believe that any perceived delay involved in filing a prior notice is 
offset by the protection the procedure gives customers.
    As we stated in the NOPR, the Commission does not intend to allow 
automatic abandonment of delivery points used for firm service that are 
under contracts that are in force and effect, because parties paying 
demand charges should retain the availability of those points.
    As stated, Indicated Shippers argues that gas suppliers, point 
operators, gatherers, pooling parties, and OBA parties upstream of 
receipt points and gas supply facilities should be included as 
customers from whom consent is required prior to facilities being 
abandoned automatically. The Commission believes that its proposal to 
allow automatic abandonment of receipt or delivery points that have not 
been used for a one year period provided it is no longer controlled by 
a firm contract is appropriate. Pipelines should have the flexibility 
to abandon facilities that are no longer used and useful. To the extent 
that upstream suppliers do not have contract agreements with the 
pipeline but, instead, have gathering, pooling, balancing, or some 
other type agreement with the pipeline's shippers, they should seek the 
appropriate remedy under those contracts. We note that pipelines are 
not designed to stand by without charging for service.
Sections 157.216(d) (4) and (5)
    The NOPR proposed to modify Sec. 157.216(d)(4) and add new 
Sec. 157.216(d)(5) to require that pipelines supply: (1) The date earth 
disturbance related to an abandonment began, and (2) the date 
clearances were actually received under the Endangered Species Act, the 
National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management 
Act.
    Comments: Michigan Gas Storage contends that clearances under the 
National Historic Preservation Act should not be required where the 
same earth that was disturbed for construction is redisturbed for 
abandonment. It states that paragraphs (d) (4) and (5) should be 
limited to abandonment of facilities where there is earth disturbance 
beyond the earth disturbance involved in the original construction.
    Commission Response: If there is no ground disturbance or if the 
disturbance is similar to the previous ground disturbance, the report 
might consist simply of the applicant's statement that there is no 
ground disturbance or the SHPO agreement that the ground disturbance 
does not constitute a concern. However, since it is difficult to 
ascertain the many situations that could arise and the many exceptions 
possible, the Commission will still require that the applicant obtain 
agreement from the appropriate SHPO in order to avoid the requirement 
for a more detailed report. Of course, as with all the resource 
reports, the option is there to explain the absence of material based 
on the nature of the project. It will then be up to the staff to 
determine if the reason is adequate.

Section 157.217--Changes in rate schedules

    The NOPR proposed to remove this section, which provides pipelines 
with automatic authority to permit customers to change rate schedules.
    Comments: Duke Energy believes that if a pipeline and its customer 
both desire to convert to part 284 service, they should be able to do 
so on an automatic and mutually agreeable basis, so long as it is non-
discriminatory. Duke Energy understands that the Commission has limited 
its interpretation of this section in the past, citing Northwest 
Pipeline Company.28 However, it believes that the regulation 
should continue and be clarified to allow section 7(c) customers to 
convert to part 284 service. Such a conversion would be consistent with 
Order No. 636.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 49 FERC para. 61, 162 (1989), reh'g denied, 50 FERC para. 
61, 200 (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission Response: We agree. The Commission's policy is to foster 
conversion from individually certificated transportation and storage to 
open access transportation and storage. Therefore, we will revise 
Sec. 157.217 to specifically provide that pipelines can change rate 
schedules, at a customer's request, for the purpose of converting part 
157 transportation or storage service to a complementary part 284 
service. This section will provide automatic abandonment authorization 
for the part 157 transportation service, obviating the need for 
pipelines to file separate abandonment applications. However, pipelines 
will need to make a filing to reflect removal of the part 157 rate 
schedule from their tariff. We will also grant a generic waiver, to the 
extent necessary, to allow the converting shipper to retain its 
existing capacity through the conversion. We will also require that the 
rate the shipper will pay after conversion to part 284 will reflect all 
the maximum rates and charges associated with the service.

Appendix II to Subpart F--Procedures for compliance with the National 
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 under Sec. 157.206(d)(3)(ii)

    The NOPR proposed minor editorial revisions, such as changing the 
reference in the title from ``Sec. 157.206(d)(3)(ii)'' to 
``Sec. 157.206(b)(3)(ii)''.
    Comments: The Council made several comments relating to the 
inclusion of interested persons in the regulations for complying with 
cultural resources requirements. Specifically, it said that involvement 
of interested persons needs to be clarified in Appendix II. It said 
that appendix II does not offer any

[[Page 26591]]

explicit guidance on consultation with interested persons. In 
particular it doesn't specifically refer to the authority given to 
certain tribes to take over the function of the SHPO on their lands. 
Further, in reference to Sec. 380.12(f), since the rule does not 
explicitly provide for the involvement of interested persons in the 
development of mitigation/treatment, the project sponsor could propose 
a Treatment Plan, inappropriately, without consultation with any 
interested persons. Finally, the Council argues that the rule does not 
go far enough in providing a consultative role for interested persons, 
since Sec. 380.14(a) states only that the Commission will ``take into 
account views of interested parties.''
    Commission Response: With respect to appendix II, to better 
indicate tribal authority we will modify the first sentence of 
paragraph 1(a) to read: ``* * * procedures used by the appropriate 
Tribal or Federal land managing agency * * *'' In addition reference to 
the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) should be added in most 
parts of the regulation referring to the SHPO. We will add reference to 
the THPO as appropriate, including a new definition of THPO in appendix 
II: ``(d) ``THPO'' means the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer.'' 
And in paragraph (1)(b) ``If there is no SHPO or THPO, if appropriate, 
or if the SHPO or THPO, as appropriate, decline to * * *''. Similar 
changes have been made to paragraphs (3) through (9).
     We disagree with the Council and believe that the rule, in 
general, adequately provides for the involvement of interested parties. 
The rule references OPR's ``Guidelines for Reporting on Cultural 
Resources Investigations'' and the pertinent sections--III.B.2., IV.A, 
V.B.12, VI.B.3., VI.C., VII.C., VIII.D., which provide for public 
participation throughout the process. In addition, the Commission's 
environmental process, which includes sending out Notices of Intent, 
holding scoping meetings, and issuing Environmental Assessments or 
Environmental Impact Statements, allows us to explicitly solicit 
comments from any potentially interested persons regarding cultural 
resources.
    With respect to Treatment Plans, as we have already stated, the 
guidelines do indicate the need to involve interested persons. However, 
there would be nothing wrong with an applicant proposing such a 
Treatment Plan since the Commission's environmental process would 
ensure the involvement of interested persons in the formulation of the 
ultimate Treatment Plan to be used. The applicant's plan is merely a 
starting point.
    While a company can file a Treatment Plan in resource report 4 
(Sec. 380.12(f)), they don't have to. The guidelines at section VIII.D 
provide for review of a Treatment Plan by interested persons even if 
the Treatment Plan is filed with the Commission early in the process.

Appendix II--Paragraph (7)

    Comments: The Council contends that the citation in paragraph (7) 
to 36 CFR Sec. 800.3(a) should be to 36 CFR Sec. 800.9 instead.
    Commission Response: We agree the reference should be changed. 
However, we believe a more appropriate reference is to 36 CFR 
Sec. 800.5 rather than 36 CFR Sec. 800.9. Under the current Council 
regulations, Sec. 800.5 ``Assessing effects'' references Sec. 800.9 
applying the ``Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect,'' accomplishing 
the effect the Advisory Council is seeking.

Appendix II--Arbitration

    Comments: The Council states that Appendix II does not provide for 
arbitration of disputes or cases where the SHPO may choose not to 
consult with the project sponsor.
    Commission Response: This is not correct. Paragraph 1(b) 
specifically deals with the case where the SHPO declines to consult. If 
there is a dispute that can't be resolved, then the project is not 
authorized under this program, and the only way it can proceed is 
through the standard certificate process (see paragraph (9)). There was 
no intent to provide for arbitration of a project the Commission may 
not be aware of prior to construction.

D. Part 284--Certain Sales and Transportation of Natural Gas Under the 
Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 and Related Authority

    Part 284 sets forth the general provisions and conditions that 
govern certain sales and transportation of natural gas under the NGA 
and the NGPA.

Subpart J--Blanket Certificates Authorizing Certain Natural Gas Sales 
by Interstate Pipelines

Section 284.288--Reporting Requirements
    This section sets forth the annual reporting requirements for an 
interstate pipeline making sales under this subpart. Blanket sales 
certificates were issued to interstate pipelines in Order No. 636. The 
NOPR sought comment on whether the information required by this section 
is still necessary or whether it has become obsolete, leading to 
removal of the section from the regulations.
    Comments: Indicated Shippers argues that the requirement is far 
from obsolete and should be retained, since the circumstances leading 
to imposing the reporting requirements remain a reality. Interstate 
pipelines continue to maintain monopoly control over gas 
transportation. Thus, there is no basis for eliminating this 
requirement. Indicated Shippers contends that the information is 
necessary to determine if the pipeline is exercising market power. The 
requirement acts as a deterrent to unlawful conduct that otherwise 
would go unreported.
    Conversely, National Fuel and Williston Basin support discontinuing 
the reporting requirement.
    Commission Response: We no longer place the same emphasis on this 
report as we did when it was implemented. We believe that eliminating 
this report will not have a detrimental impact on the customers of any 
pipeline engaging in unbundled sales under subpart J of part 284. 
Pipelines engaging in such sales are fully unbundled and have in place 
system transportation rates that reflect their cost of service. These 
transportation rates will not be affected by any unbundled sales a 
pipelines makes under subpart J. Therefore, in the interim, the volume 
of any such sales and the associated revenue will not impact the rates 
customers currently pay for service. When a pipeline files a section 4 
proceeding, the information related to subpart J sales will be set out 
in the pipeline's Statement G, Secs. 154.312(j) (i) and (ii), which 
require, among other things, revenues and billing determinants by rate 
schedule and customer name. It is in the context of a rate case that 
the costs associated with any unbundled sales can be scrutinized.

E. Part 375--The Commission

    Part 375 sets forth the general provisions of the Commission, the 
procedures for Sunshine Act meetings and delegations of authority.

Subpart C--Delegations

Section 375.307 Delegations to the Director of the Office of Pipeline 
Regulation.

Sections 375.307(a)(1) and (a)(4)

    The NOPR proposed to increase the $5,000,000 spending limit to 
match the prior notice limits set forth in Sec. 157.208(d).
    Comments: AGA requests that the Commission expressly preclude 
pipelines from segmenting their projects to meet this spending 
threshold. AGA

[[Page 26592]]

suggests that this section be revised to include:

    ``An applicant must certify that the proposed project has not 
been improperly segmented in order to meet the spending limit 
specified in Sec. 157.208(d).''

    Commission Response: We reiterate that updating and broadening the 
certificate regulations is designed to facilitate the filing of more 
complete applications and to provide faster processing of applications 
once they are filed. We do not intend for these changes to provide 
opportunities for pipelines to circumvent the intent of our regulations 
and policies. However, rather than revise the delegation of authority 
regulations, we will instead revise the blanket certificate 
regulations. Therefore, we will revise section 157.208 to specifically 
state that pipelines shall not segment projects in order to meet the 
spending limits in Sec. 157.208(d).
Section 375.307(a)(3)
    The NOPR proposed to remove an obsolete condition in 
Sec. 375.307(a)(3), which delegates abandonment authority to the 
Director of OPR for gas purchase facilities with a construction cost of 
less than $1 million or the deletion of delivery points.
    Comments: NGSA requests that this section be modified to take into 
account the financial and operating interests of upstream producers, 
gatherers and point operators attached to facilities proposed to be 
abandoned. NGSA raises the same argument it raised regarding a similar 
proposal to modify the abandonment of receipt points under 
Sec. 157.216.
    Commission Response: For the same reasons set forth in our answer 
in Sec. 157.216, we will deny this request.
Section 375.307(a)(10)
    The NOPR proposed new Sec. 375.307(a)(10) to delegate to the 
Director of OPR the authority to dismiss protests to prior notice 
filings that the Director determines do not raise a substantive issue 
and fail to provide any specific detailed reason or rationale for the 
objection.
    Comments: Sempra Energy states that the Commission should recognize 
that not all applications have merits and that opponents or protestors 
may not have adequate information at the time of protest to prevent 
dismissal of their protest. This delegation calls for legal conclusions 
by the OPR Director rather than factual holdings or ministerial action 
on routine matters and is not truly appropriate for delegation.
    Commission Response: As we noted earlier, the authority delegated 
to the Director of OPR to dismiss protests is intended to apply only to 
situations where unsubstantiated allegations are raised, and only 
applies to such protests filed in response to prior notice applications 
filed under Sec. 157.205.

F. Part 380--Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act

    The regulations in Part 380 implement the Commission's procedures 
under the NEPA. These regulations supplement the regulations of the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 
(1986). Part 380 essentially follows the CEQ procedures concerning 
early and efficient review of environmental issues, public notice and 
participation, scoping, interagency cooperation, comments, and timing 
of decisions on proposals.

Section 380.12--Environmental Reports for Natural Gas Act Applications

    The NOPR proposed to replace part 380 appendix A (guidelines for 
the environmental report), which is out of date and contains numerous 
errors, with the currently optional appendix G resource reports in the 
electronic filing requirements, which virtually all companies are now 
using instead of appendix A. In Sec. 380.12 the NOPR listed, in detail, 
the information the Commission needs to conduct an environmental review 
of a proposal under NEPA. The NOPR proposed that applications not 
meeting a minimum specified portion of these requirements will be 
rejected.
Mileposts and Map Checklist
    Comments: National Fuel states that all references to mileposts in 
this section should be revised to permit the use of conventional survey 
centerline stationing if available. Most companies use field survey, 
stake and mark pipeline centerlines using conventional survey 
stationing, which National Fuel contends is far more accurate than 
mileposts. They assert that survey stationing provides a discrete 
location identified for each feature within each milepost. National 
Fuel argues that companies should not be required to convert 
conventional survey stationing references to mileposts merely to file 
applications. In addition, National Fuel states that it would be 
helpful if the Commission included a mapping summary table or checklist 
in Sec. 380.12, since the mapping requirements are spread throughout 
the section.
    Commission Response: The intent of all the ``mileposting'' 
requirements is to have a unique and uniform method of identifying the 
position of resources on the route of the proposed pipeline. We will 
accept any method that accomplishes this goal; therefore we add a new 
Sec. 380.12(b)(6) to read:

    Whenever this section refers to ``mileposts'' the applicant may 
substitute ``survey centerline stationing'' if so desired. However, 
whatever method is chosen should be used consistently throughout the 
resource reports.

    Rather than cluttering the regulation with a listing of where 
things can be found, we will provide a guidance list of the Commission 
regulations that require maps and post it on our INTERNET website. The 
following sections include references to maps or plat plans in the 
regulations: 380.12(c)(1); 380.12(c)(2)(i)(C); 380.12(c)(3)(i); 
380.12(c)(3)(iii); 380.12(c)(4); 380.12(d)(4); 380.12(k)(2)(iv); 
380.12(l)(2); 380.12(l)(3); and 380.12(o)(1, 2-4, & 6).
Minimum Checklist Requirement
    The NOPR proposed to add a checklist of minimum filing requirements 
for environmental reports (Sec. 380.12) as appendix A to part 380; 
missing items will result in an application being subject to rejection 
under Sec. 157.8.
    Comments: Great Lakes and INGAA state that some of the information 
required in the checklist is not available at the time of filing. For 
example, information on all access roads and contractor staging yards 
by milepost can not be finalized until after a project is bid out and 
the contractor is able to assess the project. Some information, such as 
description of proposed compressors, including manufacturer name, model 
number and horsepower rating will harm the bidding processes to the 
detriment of ratepayers. Other information such as wildlife resource 
surveys is seasonally dependent. INGAA asks the Commission to consider 
these realities when deciding whether to reject an application. INGAA 
recommends that the Commission modify the checklist to allow more 
general information to be provided at the time of filing, along with a 
schedule of when more detailed info will be provided.
    Great Lakes requests that the Commission modify the checklist to 
designate certain data (including data regarding wetlands, T&E surveys, 
and cultural resource surveys) which, although preferred at the time of 
filing, may be omitted without the filing being rejected provided that 
the pipeline includes an acceptable schedule for filing any omitted 
material. The new regulations should recognize both failure to obtain 
landowner consent to

[[Page 26593]]

entry and seasonal considerations such as weather as excusing a 
pipeline from supplying environmental information at the time of 
filing.
    Enron agrees with INGAA that some information is not available at 
the time of filing. Enron suggests that the following items be removed 
from the checklist: Wetland maps and delineation, Sec. 380.12(d)(4); 
contractor and pipe storage yards, Sec. 380.12(j)(1)(iv), hydrostatic 
test data, Sec. 380.12(d)(6); planned residential and commercial 
business development, Sec. 380.12(j)(3); and manufacturer's name and 
model numbers for compressor units, Sec. 380.12(k)(4). Enron contends 
that a filing should not be rejected based on environmental information 
that is not available at time of filing.
    INGAA recommends that the following be added to the end of 
Sec. 380.12(a)(2):

    Each topic of the checklist should be addressed or its omission 
justified. Any information missing at the time of filing shall be 
identified as to why it is missing and when the applicant 
anticipates it will be filed. The Director shall consider the 
proposed timing of the filing of missing information in concert with 
that of other competing applications, if any. If this missing 
information is needed to complete a NEPA analysis of a competing 
application within a reasonable time frame, the Director will notify 
the applicant of a revised time schedule for the needed information. 
Failure to provide the data within the time schedule may result in 
the delay of processing or rejection of the application.

    Process Gas Consumers opposes the proposal to reject outright 
filings that fail to provide the items in the checklist. Pipelines may 
only be able to file interim or conditional approvals from relevant 
environmental agencies at time of filing. Commission should remain 
flexible in accepting applications for which the pipeline demonstrates 
that it is actively pursuing all required environmental permits and 
data.
    Commission Response: As stated in Sec. 380.12(a)(2), the applicant 
should explain the absence of any material specified in the resource 
report description in the regulation and provide a schedule for filing 
the missing information. If the missing material is part of the minimum 
filing requirements, then the filing may be rejected if the material is 
missing because of inadequate planning. It is up to the applicant to 
prepare for the filing for its project far enough in advance to 
maximize the level of detail in the reports. While it may not be 
possible to initially determine all the access roads or staging yards 
required by a project, companies with the expertise to build pipeline 
projects are certainly capable of outlining a reasonable set of roads 
and staging areas that will cover most of the needs of the project. In 
fact, most current applications include this information when they are 
filed. As for wildlife surveys, there are widely available lists of the 
sensitive species for which surveys may be needed in a project area, 
and every effort should be made to plan for these surveys in time to 
meet project needs. In many cases, it will still be possible to survey 
for habitat even if the species will not be there. The wetlands list 
can be provided based on NWI maps or similar sources if delineations 
have not been done by the time of filing of the application. 
Nevertheless, the staff will review the reasons given for the absence 
of required material when determining whether an application should be 
rejected.
    As to INGAA's suggestion, the presence or absence of a competing 
application is irrelevant to whether an incomplete application should 
be accepted. However, to make it clear that there is room for 
discretion in the event a good reason is provided by the applicant, we 
will add the following wording to Sec. 380.12(a)(3): ``*  *  * will 
result in rejection of the application unless the Director of OPR 
determines that the applicant has provided an acceptable reason for the 
item's absence and an acceptable schedule for filing it. Failure to 
file within the acceptable schedule will result in rejection of the 
application.''
    Finally, contrary to Process Gas Consumers' comment, permits are 
not required by the checklist.
    Cumulative Effects
    New Sec. 380.12(b)(3) requires the pipeline to identify the effects 
of construction, operation and termination of a project, including the 
cumulative effects resulting from existing or reasonably foreseeable 
projects.
    Comments: INGAA is concerned that a new, more detailed level of 
analysis is proposed by requiring identification of ``cumulative 
effects'' resulting from existing or reasonably foreseeable projects. 
INGAA contends that this is more appropriate on the Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) level and is excessive for environmental report 
analysis. It argues that the provision should be clarified or deleted.
    Commission Response: The CEQ regulations include ``cumulative'' 
effects in the definition of ``effects'' or impacts. Cumulative effects 
are, in fact, part of the current specification in appendix 
G.29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See the introductory paragraph (c) in the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Location Maps
    New Sec. 380.12(c)(1) is part of Resource Report 1 and requires 
pipelines to describe and provide location maps of all facilities.
    Comments: INGAA's comments here mirror its comments to 
Sec. 380.12(a)(2). It states that certain of the specific requirements 
in paragraph (c)(1) will be difficult to provide at the beginning of a 
project.
    Response: Our response is the same as stated for Sec. 380.12(a)(2). 
If the material is part of the minimum filing requirements, then the 
filing may be rejected if the material is missing because of inadequate 
planning.
Nonjurisdictional Facilities
    Proposed Sec. 380.12(c)(2) lists the information the Commission 
needs to consider the environmental impact of related nonjurisdictional 
facilities that would be constructed upstream or downstream of the 
jurisdictional facilities for the purpose of delivering, receiving, or 
using the proposed gas volumes.
    Comments: Enron, INGAA, Koch Gateway, and Williams state that 
requiring information relative to the four-factor test creates conflict 
between the pipeline and the nonjurisdictional customer building 
related facilities. They argue that nonjurisdictional companies may be 
unable or unwilling for competitive reasons to provide such information 
to the pipeline. The environmental review and permitting process for 
these nonjurisdictional facilities does not encompass the same filing 
requirements as the Commission's process. Thus, they contend, 
information required by this proposed regulation may have to be created 
specifically for the Commission before the status of the facilities is 
reviewed under the four-factor test.
    Duke Energy shares the same basic concern. It requests that 
pipelines not be placed in peril of rejection with respect to this 
requirement. Duke Energy proposes that the requirement be deleted from 
the minimum requirements list, or alternatively, the Commission clarify 
that: (1) A good faith statement that the information being provided is 
all that is available to the applicant at the time of filing; or (2) a 
statement that the pipeline has reached the conclusion that the 
nonjurisdictional facilities are not subject to Commission 
environmental review, will suffice to avoid rejection.
    AGA is concerned that the Commission intends to impose conditions 
upon facilities that are not within its jurisdiction. AGA does not

[[Page 26594]]

want to subject nonjurisdictional facilities to duplicative 
environmental reviews by both the Commission and state agencies. It 
requests that the Commission clarify that it will not impose conditions 
on nonjurisdictional facilities or duplicate existing state 
environmental requirements.
    Commission Response: The information requested for 
nonjurisdictional facilities is almost exclusively descriptive and 
deals with the type of facility and its location. This is not 
information that the applicant should have any trouble obtaining from 
the customer. The only detailed environmental material relates to 
cultural resources and endangered species. Once the applicant knows 
what nonjurisdictional facilities are intended and their location, it 
will not be difficult to get determinations from the appropriate 
agencies on whether additional information is needed. At the point the 
nonjurisdictional company indicates it is, or is not, going to do 
surveys the applicant will be able to so inform the Commission. 
Sections 380.12(a)(2) and (a)(3) will allow the applicant to show why 
the information could not be provided.
    The Commission is not expanding its jurisdiction beyond its current 
boundaries. The wording says ``the extent to which the project is under 
Commission jurisdiction.'' For the purposes of the four factor test, 
``project'' means all the facilities that are associated with the 
jurisdictional proposal and that which as a whole define the reason for 
the application.
Electronically Generated Maps
    New Sec. 380.12(c)(3)(i) requires the pipeline to file current, 
original United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps or 
equivalent maps covering the route of the proposed project.
    Comments: Enron and INGAA state that electronically generated USGS 
maps are currently accepted by the Commission. They request that the 
Commission clarify that electronically generated equivalent maps will 
continue to comply with this requirement.
    Commission Response: The requirement is for ``original'' USGS maps 
or ``maps of equivalent detail.'' If the electronically generated maps 
can provide the ``equivalent'' level of detail, then they are 
acceptable.30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See the discussion of Sec. 380.12(c)(3)(ii) concerning up-
to-date material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aerial Photographs
    New Sec. 380.12(c)(3)(ii) requires the pipeline to file original 
aerial photographs or photo-based alignment sheets not more than one 
year old showing the route of the proposed project and the location of 
major aboveground facilities.
    Comments: Duke Energy, El Paso, Enron, INGAA, and National Fuel 
argue that when there has not been a change in land use, aerial 
photographs a few years old still accurately depict current conditions. 
They contend that to require new photographs could cause significant 
delays since they can only be taken when weather and foliage do not 
inhibit clear shots. These parties suggest that the regulation not 
prescribe a set time frame for when the photograph must have been 
taken, but require that the photograph, regardless of age, reasonably 
depict the current land usage. El Paso suggests allowing photographs 
not more than three years old.
    Enron states that the requirement to provide a 0.5 mile-wide 
corridor is burdensome. It suggests no set distance be required, in 
order to allow enough flexibility that the width and scale depicted on 
aerial photographs can be based on the land use the proposed facilities 
will impact.
    Williston Basin wants the Commission to clarify that digital 
photographs are acceptable as a more economical and efficient 
alternative to aerial photographs.
    Commission Response: Upon reconsideration, we believe it is 
appropriate to allow older aerial photos as long as the pipeline 
certifies that the aerial photographs accurately depict current land 
use and development in the project area. Further, the applicant should 
draft locations of any new houses on the photographs.
    At the requested scale a one-half mile wide corridor is about 5 
inches wide. The aerial photographs that are currently filed are 
commonly 24 inches square. USGS topographic maps are substantially more 
than 1 foot wide in each dimension with each inch of map covering 2,000 
feet or almost 0.5 mile. This requirement will only require obtaining 
adjacent maps where the proposed facilities are parallel and adjacent 
to the border or cross a corner of the map or photograph.
    We will change the wording of Sec. 380.12(c)(3)(ii) and appendix A 
to clarify that the Commission requires aerial images, not necessarily 
emulsion based photographs. We will allow older images as long as they 
are still an accurate representation of the current conditions. Older 
images should be modified to show any residences constructed since the 
image/photograph was made. The new wording is: ``Original aerial images 
or photographs or photo-based alignment sheets based on these sources, 
not more than one year old (unless older ones accurately depict current 
land use and development) * * * and including mileposts. Older images/
photographs/alignment sheets should be modified to show any residences 
not depicted on the originals.'' In Resource Report 1 in appendix A, 
the text of the fourth requirement should read: ``Provide aerial images 
or photographs or alignment sheets based on these sources with 
mileposts showing the project facilities; (Sec. 380.12(c)(3)).''
Construction and Restoration Methods
    New Sec. 380.12(c)(6) requires that the proposed construction and 
restoration methods be described and identified by milepost.
    Comments: Enron and INGAA state that construction and restoration 
methods can be categorized based on the existing land use, which is 
required, and by milepost in Resource Report 8 and Sec. 380.12(j)(2). 
Therefore, it is not necessary to provide the information in 
Sec. 380.12(c)(6). INGAA proposes to remove the phrase ``and identify 
by milepost.'' Further, Enron requests an explanation of the phrase 
``longitudinally under roads.''
    Commission Response: We disagree with INGAA's comment. The 
discussion in Sec. 380.12(c)(6) deals with special construction 
techniques that would be used in certain areas. These areas may or may 
not correspond to the land use areas described in Sec. 380.12(j)(2). 
For instance, ``rugged topography'' does not correspond to any 
particular land use category.
    As to Enron's request, ``longitudinally under roads'' means under 
the road and parallel to its length. This is in contrast to crossing 
the road. We will replace the above words in Sec. 380.12(c)(6) with: 
``parallel to and under roads.''
Estimated Workforce Requirements
    New Secs. 380.12(c)(7) and (g)(3) require the pipeline to provide 
the estimated workforce requirements for each project.
    Comments: Enron and INGAA are concerned with having to describe 
workforce requirements at the time of filing. They contend that this is 
not currently required by appendix G. At time of filing, pipelines have 
not bid out the project and any estimate could impact the labor 
component of bid responses. They argue that the Commission should allow 
applicants to

[[Page 26595]]

submit such data after a contractor has been selected.
    Commission Response: Contrary to INGAA's belief, Resource Report 5 
in the current requirements in appendix G does, in fact, ask for 
workforce requirements. The Commission believes that the pipelines are 
familiar enough with the requirements for building pipelines that they 
can adequately estimate the workforce requirements needed to comply 
with this requirement without having chosen a contractor.
Names and Addresses of Landowners
    New Sec. 380.12(c)(10) requires the pipeline to provide the names 
and addresses of all landowners whose land would be crossed by the 
project facilities.
    Comments: INGAA contends that this requirement involves the 
landowner notification issue in the proceeding in Docket No. RM98-17-
000. INGAA proposes to notify landowners the following business day 
after FERC assigns a docket number and notices the application. When 
the Commission notifies the pipeline of its intent to prepare an EA or 
EIS, the pipeline would then provide the Commission with a list of 
landowners of record (landowners receiving most recent tax notice) that 
may be subject to eminent domain within 10 days of the Commission's 
request. INGAA requests that the Commission adopt this proposal.
    Commission Response: While it is true that the landowner 
notification issue is being considered under Docket No. RM98-17-000, 
that docket concerns whether, when, and how, the pipelines should 
notify landowners of a project (including which landowners should be 
notified) separate from the Commission's notification of scoping under 
the NEPA process. The Commission will still need to be able to notify 
certain landowners as part of the NEPA notification process and that is 
the purpose behind this requirement. Since INGAA has proposed and most 
of the pipelines which commented on the notice in the Docket No. RM98-
17-000 agreed to notify landowners very shortly after filing, there 
should be no difficulty in providing these names and addresses to the 
Commission at the time of filing. Any other method can only slow up the 
processing of applications by delaying the issuance of the scoping 
notice.
Resource Report 2--Water Use and Quality
    Comments: The Department of Interior (Interior) contends that the 
first sentence of Sec. 380.12(d)(1) should be modified to read:

    Identify and describe by milepost, perennial waterbodies and 
municipal water supply or watershed areas, especially designated 
surface water protection areas and sensitive water bodies, and both 
seasonal and permanent wetlands that would be crossed.

    Commission Response: The change to Sec. 380.12(d)(1) is 
unnecessary. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) jurisdictional wetlands 
encompass both types of wetland. Section 380.12(d)(4) makes it clear 
that delineations using the current Federal methodology are required 
and these delineations will identify all COE-jurisdictional wetlands.
Wetland and Waterbody Mitigation Measures
    New Sec. 380.12(d)(2), in Resource Report 2, Water use and quality, 
requires pipelines to compare proposed mitigation measures with the 
staff's current ``Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 
Procedures'' (WWCMP or Procedures).
    Comments: Enron and INGAA argue that there may be methods approved 
by state and local agencies that accomplish the same goal as the WWCMP, 
but that are not the same as the Procedures. They ask the Commission to 
clarify that pipelines can show that certain procedures are not 
necessary for a particular project and thus not required. Enron wants 
the Commission to clarify that reference to the Procedures is not 
intended to change the status of this document as a guideline. It does 
not believe these Procedures should be cited in regulations and 
proposes that they be removed from Sec. 380.12(d)(2).
    National Fuel seeks extensive revision to the Procedure's manual, 
particularly sections V.B.2.c, V.B.6.b & c, V.B.7.c, VI.B.3.
    Williams states that the requirement in paragraph (d)(1) to 
identify waterbodies is the same requirement as in (e)(2). Williams 
states that the requirements should only be included in one resource 
report.
    Interior states that placing barriers in pipeline trenches to 
ensure that surface or ground water is not diverted or drained from 
wetlands should be a required mitigation measure.
    Commission Response: The reference to the WWCMP does not create a 
requirement that these procedures be used. They are simply a set of 
procedures that the Commission believes will adequately protect these 
resources during construction. Therefore, if the applicant indicates 
that they will be used for its project the staff's review time will be 
minimized for these resources. There will certainly be situations where 
portions of the procedures are not applicable. The applicant is 
required to inform the Commission of those project-specific situations 
in order for the Commission to better understand the project's 
potential for environmental impact.
    Since the Procedures are not being codified by this rulemaking we 
will not modify or update them here. The staff of the Office of 
Pipeline Regulation is continually looking at the Procedures to see if 
modification is in order. As changes are made to the current 
guidelines, they will be noticed and the revised version will be made 
available.31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The WWCMP are currently available on our Internet website 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/gas/environment/gidlines.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The references to wetlands in Secs. 380.12(d)(1) and 380.12(e)(2) 
are not the same. Section 380.12(d)(1) requires a listing of the 
wetlands that are identified on the maps discussed in 
Sec. 380.12(d)(4). Section 380.12(e)(2) requires a discussion of the 
fish, wildlife or vegetation of significance in the wetlands. The 
difference is in classification of wetlands versus their habitat use. 
Nevertheless, the applicant can always indicate that the material 
required in one resource report can be found in another by cross-
referencing it, if it is, in fact, duplicative.32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See section 380.12(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to Interior's comments, there are a number of mitigation 
measures that are identified in the Procedures, among them a 
requirement to maintain the hydrology of wetlands. Applicants are 
required to compare their proposals to these procedures. Our staff will 
review the proposals to make sure wetlands are properly protected.
Staging Areas
    New Sec. 380.12(d)(3) requires applicants to describe typical 
staging areas need at waterbody and wetland crossings.
    Comments: Interior states that Sec. 380.12(d)(3) should be worded 
to ensure that staging areas are not placed in wetlands.
    Commission Response: There are a number of mitigation measures that 
are identified in the Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 
Procedures, among them a requirement to keep extra work space away from 
wetlands. Applicants are required to compare their proposals to these 
procedures. It is important to note that it may not always be possible 
to keep staging or other work areas entirely out of wetlands.
Wetlands Maps
    New Sec. 380.12(d)(4) requires identifying wetlands by either using

[[Page 26596]]

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps or the alternative USGS maps.
     Comments: INGAA states that the minimum checklist only allows 
filing of NWI maps and should accommodate the use of both types of 
maps.Enron states that wetland maps should not be a minimum checklist 
item, or the checklist should be revised to allow the alternative of 
initially filing the best available information, supplemented at a 
later date when delineation is completed.
    Interior states that Sec. 380.12(d)(4) allows filing of NWI maps to 
show wetland crossings. Because these maps may not show all 
jurisdictional wetlands, Interior argues that the applicant should be 
required to verify wetland locations by conducting field delineations 
verified by the COE.
    Commission Response: We intended Sec. 380.12(d)(4) to require 
applicants to obtain NWI maps in all cases where they are available. 
State wetland maps, not USGS maps, should be provided if NWI maps are 
not available. As the checklist states, these maps are needed at the 
time of filing for general routing and alternative routing 
considerations. This section has been modified to make it clear that 
the Commission wants a field delineation of wetlands. Although actual 
wetland delineations are required, they can be filed later if 
necessary. In any event, they must be filed before the staff's EA or 
EIS can be completed. Section 380.12(d)(4) and the checklist will be 
reworded as follows:

    Include National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. If NWI maps are 
not available, provide the appropriate state wetland maps. Identify 
for each crossing, the milepost, the wetland classification 
specified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the length of 
the crossing. Include two copies of the NWI maps (or the 
substitutes, if NWI maps are not available), directed to the 
environmental staff, clearly showing the proposed route and 
mileposts. Describe by milepost, wetland crossings as determined by 
field investigations using the current Federal methodology.

    The seventh requirement in the checklist (appendix A) for Resource 
Report 2 will have the following parenthetical added after the word 
``maps'':

(or the appropriate state wetland maps, if NWI maps are not 
available).
 Hydrostatic Test Water
    New Sec. 380.12(d)(6) relates the information required when 
pipelines discharge hydrostatic test water.
    Comments: Enron and INGAA contend that a permit is required from 
state and federal agencies other than the Commission and that such 
testing is not done until a pipeline is installed. They argue that such 
information is not necessary, is not the Commission's responsibility 
and that the requirement should be deleted from Resource Report 2. 
Alternatively, Enron requests that such information not be included in 
the minimum checklist, since such testing does not generally occur 
until just prior to placing facilities in-service.
    Commission Response: While it is true that there are other agencies 
which have responsibilities with respect to hydrostatic test water, 
that does not alleviate the Commission's responsibility under NEPA to 
know the effects of projects under its jurisdiction. Further, the 
Commission can not simply defer to what another agency will do in a 
particular case unless it has some independent knowledge of the 
potential impact. Further, we note that the minimum filing requirements 
do not include any information related to hydrostatic test water, 
although such information is needed to complete the EA or EIS.
 Terrestrial Habitats
    New Sec. 380.12(e)(2), part of Resource Report 3, Fish, wildlife, 
and vegetation, requires a description of terrestrial habitats, 
including wetlands, that might be affected by a proposed project.
    Comments: Interior states that the first sentence of 
Sec. 380.12(e)(2) should be modified to read: ``Describe terrestrial 
habitats, including wetlands, typical wildlife habitats, and rare or 
unique habitats, that might be affected by the proposed action.''
    Commission Response: We agree and will modify section 380.12(e)(2) 
to read: ``* * * typical wildlife habitats, and rare, unique or 
otherwise significant habitats, that might * * *''.
Aquatic and Terrestrial Species
    New Sec. 380.12(e)(4), part of Resource Report 3, Fish, wildlife, 
and vegetation, requires a description of the impact of construction 
and operation on aquatic and terrestrial species and their habitats.
    Comments: INGAA states that while general information can be 
provided at the time of filing, detailed information cannot be 
furnished until all state and federal agency work is done and field 
survey work is completed. It contends that requiring detailed 
information at the time of filing could delay a project by more than 
one year. INGAA recommends that the checklist require general 
information at the time of filing and the submission of more detailed 
information at a later date.
    Response: The only site-specific information required by 
Sec. 380.12(e)(4) deals with significant habitats and communities. 
These areas will normally be known to state and local agencies which 
must be consulted by the applicant. In most cases, surveys are not 
needed to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph, general 
information will suffice. However, surveys should be done where the 
state or local agencies identify species with which they are concerned. 
While, the checklist does not require these surveys to be complete at 
the time of filing, the Commission sees no reason why the pipeline 
should not have that information available at the time of filing. We 
will modify the last sentence of this paragraph by replacing the comma 
after ``vegetation'' with a period and the remainder of the sentence 
will read:

    Surveys may be required to determine specific areas of 
significant habitats or communities of species of special concern to 
state or local agencies.
Endangered or Threatened Species
    New Sec. 380.12(e)(5) requires an applicant to identify all 
federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species that 
potentially occur in the vicinity of a proposed project.
    Comments: Interior states that the first sentence of Sec.  
380.12(e)(5) should be modified to read:

    Identify all federally-listed or proposed endangered or 
threatened species and critical habitat that * * *

    Commission Response: We agree and will also remove the reference to 
state species in this section, since it duplicates the reference in 
Sec. 380.12(e)(4). We will modify Sec. 380.12(e)(5) to read:

    * * * or threatened species and critical habitat that 
potentially occur in the vicinity of the project.
Cultural Resources:
    New Sec. 380.12(f), Resource Report 4, sets forth guidelines for 
pipelines relating to filing cultural resource information.
    Comments: Enron wants the Commission to remove reference to ``OPR's 
Guidelines for Reporting on Cultural Resources Investigations,'' 
stating that the guidelines should not cited in the regulations.
    INGAA contends that the report should not be required for projects 
within previously disturbed areas, such as an existing yard, consistent 
with current appendix G. Williams agrees and states that segmented 
projects should allow phased completion of reports.
    Williams states that Sec. 380.12(f)(2)(ii) discusses procedures if 
landowners deny access to private property and

[[Page 26597]]

certain areas are not surveyed. In that event, the unsurveyed area must 
be identified and supplemental surveys or evaluations conducted after 
access is granted. INGAA believes that Sec. 157.8 provides the same 
procedures for all Resource Reports, i.e., if a landowner denies 
access, there is no requirement to supply the info at the time of 
filing and the applicant may supplement reports when access is granted. 
INGAA seeks clarification on this point.
    Section 380.12(f)(2) states that SHPO and land management agency 
comments must be filed with the initial application. 
Subsection(f)(2)(i) states that any SHPO and land management agency 
comments not available at the time of filing may be filed separately. 
Enron suggests adding the phrase ``if available'' at the end of that 
section.
    National Fuel asks that Section IX.A of OPR's Guidelines for 
Reporting on Cultural Resources Investigations be modified to eliminate 
the need for at least 25 feet separation between a bore or directional 
drill and the resource to qualify as avoiding the resource.
    Williston Basin believes that the unanticipated discovery plan 
required in Sec. 380.12(f)(1)(i) should only be provided if 
consultation with the local SHPO indicates likelihood of a discovery. 
Williston Basin states that this is consistent with the Historic 
Preservation requirements of Sec. 800.11(a) of Title 36 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations.
    The Council states that Sec. 380.12(f)(2)(ii) indicates that a 
certificate can be issued even though access has been denied to certain 
project lands. It argues that the rule need to make an unequivocal 
statement that issuance of the certificate will not preclude 
consideration of a range of alternatives where access has been denied 
to certain lands.
    The Council also contends that there is no mechanism to carry the 
initial consultations mentioned in Sec. 380.12(f)(3) through to 
consideration of avoidance or mitigation.
    Commission Response: The reference to the Guidelines for Reporting 
on Cultural Resources Investigations does not create a requirement that 
these procedures be used. They are simply a set of guidelines to assist 
the applicant in preparing material for the Commission, the SHPO, and 
others. The Commission believes that if the applicant follows these 
guidelines the entities being consulted will likely have all they need 
to complete their statutory obligations in a timely fashion. There will 
certainly be situations where portions of the guidelines are not 
applicable. However, what is ultimately required will be decided by the 
Commission and the consulted entities.
    INGAA's comment concerning previously disturbed areas is consistent 
with the change to Sec. 157.206, which indicates that the standard 
environmental conditions for blanket filings are not required if there 
is no ground disturbance, among other things. If there is no ground 
disturbance, the report might consist simply of the applicant's 
statement that there will be no ground disturbance.
    If the disturbance is similar to the previous ground disturbance, 
the report might consist of photographs of the area and SHPO agreement 
that the ground disturbance does not constitute a concern. However, 
since it is difficult to encompass the many situations that could arise 
dealing with prior disturbance and the many exceptions possible, the 
Commission will still require that the applicant obtain the appropriate 
SHPO's agreement in order to avoid the requirement for a more detailed 
report. Of course, as with all the resource reports, the pipeline has 
the option to explain the absence of material based on the nature of 
the project. It will then be up to the staff to determine if the reason 
is adequate.
    Generally, segmented projects are not allowed under NEPA or the 
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). There is either one project 
or a group of independent, largely unrelated projects. The reason in 
the case of NEPA is to keep other agencies from splitting a project 
into several isolated parts so that the individual impacts will be 
minimal for each part of a project but the aggregate impact of all the 
parts might be significant. If the applicant can show that the filing 
is for a group of individual projects, then it might be possible to 
accept filings in stages. However, even in this case, it will generally 
depend on the requested timing of the approval. It is the Commission's 
experience that this is rarely acceptable. Of course, reports for the 
areas for which access is denied will come in later.
    Requiring survey reports to be filed with the application is 
intended to ensure the speediest review possible.
    Section 157.8 provides that a filing will not be rejected if 
surveys or other information can not be obtained because access was 
denied to the property. This applies to all of the information, not 
just cultural resources. Section 380.12(f)(2) should read: ``* * * 
written comments from SHPOs, THPOs, and land-management agencies, if 
available, must be filed with the initial application.''
    We will not change the requirement that a bore be at least 25 feet 
from all portions of a site in order to qualify as an ``avoidance.'' 
There have been enough instances of directional drills or bores failing 
to miss or otherwise adversely affecting cultural resources that this 
distance represents the minimum we are willing to accept. This does not 
mean a directional drill that is closer cannot be done, it simply means 
that we want to retain the option of providing the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the effects that 
might result from a failed drill.
    We agree with Williston Basin and will remove Sec. 380.12(f)(1)(i). 
Section 380.12(f)(2) should begin: ``The Documentation of initial 
cultural resource consultation, * * *''. In appendix A, the box for 
Resource Report 4 should be modified by deleting the checklist item for 
``Unanticipated Historic Properties and Remains.''
    As to the Council's comment regarding issuing certificates even 
though access has been denied to certain lands, we will change the end 
of the first sentence in Sec. 380.12(f)(2)(ii) to read: ``* * * 
supplemental surveys or evaluations shall be conducted after access is 
granted.''
    The Council also comments that there is no mechanism to carry the 
initial consultations mentioned in Sec. 380.12(f)(3) through to 
consideration of avoidance or mitigation. It misunderstands the intent 
of the rule. The Commission wants an applicant to obtain a certain 
level of information regarding cultural resources prior to filing the 
application. Once the filing is made, we will direct the further 
analysis and consultations as required on a case-by-case basis, 
including consideration of avoidance and mitigation.
Geological Resources
    New Sec. 380.12(h)(6), part of Resource Report 6, geological 
resources, requires various information with respect to underground 
storage facilities.
    Comments: NGAA contends that this section requires certain 
information which expands what is currently required to be filed. For 
example, it refers to Sec. 380.12(h)(6)(i), which requires information 
on how the applicant would control and monitor drilling activity of 
others within the storage field and buffer zone, and 
Sec. 380.12(h)(6)(ii), which requires information on how the applicant 
would monitor potential effects of the operation of adjacent storage or 
production facilities on the proposed facilities. INGAA states that 
applicants have little control over information on the drilling 
activities of other operators within a storage field, since adjacent

[[Page 26598]]

facilities information would generally be highly confidential. 
Similarly, Enron states that the information required in these sections 
is beyond the control of the storage operator. INGAA recommends that 
this information be provided to the extent it is within the control of 
the applicant.
    Commission Response: We note that the requirement is to provide a 
discussion of what steps the applicant would take to determine or 
ensure the security of its facility from the actions of others. It does 
not require any information about other producers or operators. We 
believe this is necessary to ensure that safe operation of the 
applicant's own facility.
Mitigation Measures
    New Sec. 380.12(i)(5), which is part of Resource Report 7, Soils, 
requires pipelines to describe proposed mitigation measures and compare 
them with staff's Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance 
Plan (Plan).
    Comments: Enron and INGAA raise the same comments here as 
previously discussed in Resource Report 2, Sec. 380.12(d)(2). They 
state that the Commission should accept a general description of the 
mitigation measures that will be employed and a schedule for providing 
more site-specific mitigation measures.
    National Fuel proposes that Section VII.3(g) of the Plan be 
revised.31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See National Fuel's comments, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission Response: The comments by INGAA and Enron track their 
comments with respect to the WWCMP in Sec. 380.12(d)(2). Our response 
is the same.
Land Use
    New Sec. 380.12(j), Resource Report 8, sets out the requirements 
for Land use, recreation and aesthetics.
    Comments: Enron and INGAA are concerned with the requirement to 
describe land use beyond the immediate adjacent property up to 0.25 
mile from the project. They argue that the requirement should be 
revised to describe lands beyond the immediately adjacent lands only 
when they involve environmentally sensitive areas.
    INGAA states that Sec. 380.12(j)(3) requires an applicant to 
identify all planned development by milepost and the time frame for 
construction. It states that current appendix G only requires listing 
planned development, if known. INGAA and National Fuel request that the 
regulation be clarified to require information only on planned 
development on file with local planning boards or recorded county 
records. They argue that it can be misleading to interview each 
affected landowner about possible development plans that have not 
progressed to the point of filing.
    Enron requests that information on contract and pipe storage yards 
in Sec. 380.12(j)(1) and planned residential and commercial business 
development in Sec. 380.12(j)(3) be removed from the minimum checklist 
as not generally available at the time an application is filed.
    Enron and INGAA object to the requirement in Sec. 380.12(j)(10) to 
describe ROW compensation. They argue that this requirement is not 
currently required, and will have harmful effects. INGAA contends that 
most ROW issues are resolved on a mutually agreeable basis between the 
pipeline and landowner. Where agreement cannot be reached, compensation 
is set in state or federal court based on local valuation. INGAA 
contends that it is highly prejudicial for a pipeline to speculate on 
property compensation values at the time an application is filed. Such 
statements could make it more difficult to resolve ROW matters by 
settlement. This requirement could jeopardize negotiations with other 
landowners. INGAA recommends that this requirement be eliminated or 
clarified to discuss the general process to acquire easements by 
purchase or the exercise of eminent domain.
    Duke Energy shares the same concern. It contends that compensation 
plans could be stated in general terms since actual compensation is 
site-specific. Duke Energy argues that the regulation should not 
require a company to select a forum (state or federal court) for the 
eminent domain process at such an early stage, nor should a detailed 
description of the process be required. This is because it may be 
unclear at time of filing if exercise of eminent domain will be 
required.
    The Council states that Sec. 380.12(j)(4) should specifically 
reference and include ``traditional cultural properties.''
    Commission Response: The intent of the land use Resource Report is 
to describe land use adjacent to the ROW and to make sure the applicant 
and the Commission are aware of important areas which, although not 
crossed, might nonetheless be affected by the project. To clarify this 
intent, we will make several changes to the proposed language. We will 
change the second sentence in the introduction to Sec. 380.12(j) as 
follows: ``* * * describe the existing uses of land on, and (where 
specified) within 0.25 mile of, the proposed project * * *''. We will 
add the specifications to paragraphs (3), (4), (6), and (8) as follows: 
In (3): ``Describe planned development on land crossed or within 0.25 
mile of proposed facilities, the time frame * * *;'' in (4): At the 
end: ``* * * agencies or private preservation groups. Also identify if 
any of these areas are located within 0.25 mile of any proposed 
facility;'' in (6): ``Describe any areas crossed by or within 0.25 mile 
of the proposed pipeline or plant and operational sites which are 
included in, or are designated * * *;'' in (8): ``Describe the impact 
the project will have on present uses of the affected area as 
identified above, including * * *''
    We accept INGAA's comment regarding planned development. The intent 
was to obtain the same material currently included in Appendix G. We 
will add a new sentence to the end of Sec. 380.12(j)(3) that will read: 
``Planned development means development which is on file with the local 
planning board or the county.'' The following words should be added 
after the words ``time frame'' in the first sentence so it will read: 
``* * * time frame (if available) for such development * * *''.
    The applicant should provide its best estimate of what pipeyards 
and other areas would be required with the application and bring it up 
to date as better data becomes available. Since we are clarifying the 
requirement for development information to make it clear that the 
applicant need only check local and county records to determine whether 
such development is planned, we will not remove this requirement from 
the minimum filing requirements. The Commission needs this information 
to make a responsible decision on the proposed facility location.
    Duke Energy and INGAA believe that Sec. 380.12(j)(10) requires 
information on the specific dollar amounts of landowner compensation 
and that the requirement to provide this information is not currently 
in appendix G. The last sentence of Sec. 380.12(j)(10) comes verbatim 
from appendix G. However, it does not ask for and there is no intent to 
have specific amounts of compensation provided. The applicant should 
provide a discussion of what would normally be compensated, and the 
process for determining the amount of compensation on a state-by-state-
basis.
    The Council states that Sec. 380.12(j)(4) should specifically 
reference and include ``traditional cultural properties.'' To the 
extent this information is readily available to the public we will make 
this addition.

[[Page 26599]]

 However, since it is very likely that the information will not be 
available because of tribal concerns, we prefer to address this in 
Resource Report 4, where we have specified we expect privacy to be 
maintained for resources that are sensitive. We will modify 
Sec. 380.12(j)(4) to read: ``* * * or registered natural landmarks, 
Native American religious sites and traditional cultural properties to 
the extent they are known to the public at large, and reservations, * * 
*.''
Air and Noise Quality
    New Secs. 380.12(k)(2), (3) and (4), part of Resource Report 9, Air 
and noise quality, require information regarding the noise impact of 
compression and LNG facilities.
    Comments: INGAA states that Sec. 380.12(k)(2)(ii) requires a noise 
survey at the property line of the compressor, which is unnecessary and 
not required in current appendix G. It contends that the noise level 
restriction is only applicable to the nearest noise-sensitive area, 
which is the area of concern. Thus, no noise survey at the property 
line should be required. Enron agrees that this requirement should be 
eliminated.
    Section 380.12(k)(3) requires detailed calculations for emission 
rates and the impact on air quality. INGAA is concerned that this 
requirement is duplicative of work done in obtaining air permits from 
the state and/or federal permitting agency. Such permits are not 
finalized until specific compressor models are selected. In many cases, 
all of the factors needed to obtain the necessary air permits are not 
known until after a certificate is issued by the Commission. Enron and 
INGAA requests that the Commission's current practice continue, which 
allows pipelines, at the time of filing, to provide estimates for a 
compressor unit's potential emissions of pollutants that may effect 
ambient air quality.
    Williams states that providing full load noise data may not always 
be operationally feasible, and that the Commission should allow 
flexibility to accommodate limitations.
    Enron and INGAA are concerned that Sec. 380.12(k)(4)(i) does not 
appear to accommodate noise calculations generated by a computer model, 
such as AGA Sound. Compliance with this section would require pipelines 
to duplicate a computer-generated process with a redundant set of 
manual calculations. INGAA requests that the step-by-step supporting 
calculations be eliminated and instead allow for the generation of 
noise calculations using the latest available technologies.
    Enron and INGAA both contend that Sec. 380.12(k)(4)(ii) requests 
certain information, such as the manufacturers name and model number of 
new compressor units, that should be removed from the minimum 
checklist, since this information is not generally available at the 
time the application is filed. They suggest that the minimum checklist 
only require identification of a range of feasible units, since 
pipelines generally do not request bids for units so far in advance of 
construction. This section also requires pipelines to provide noise 
data with and without noise attenuators. Since some manufacturers 
provide this data and some do not, INGAA requests that the Commission 
clarify that the applicant is only obligated to provide the information 
available at the time of filing.
    Enron raises the same concern about the 55dB(A) noise limit in 
Sec. 380.12(k)(4)(v)(A) that it raised in Sec. 157.206(b)(5). It 
requests that the Commission continue to apply the limit only to new or 
modified units.
    Commission Response: INGAA's comment claims incorrectly that the 
requirement for a property line noise survey in Sec. 380.12(k)(2)(ii) 
is unnecessary and not required in current appendix G. In fact this 
requirement is a direct quote from the third sentence in section (9)(b) 
of appendix G. The survey is needed to help in determining the 
directionality of the noise emitted by the station as well as its 
attenuation in the direction of the noise sensitive areas.
    INGAA requests that Sec. 380.12(k)(3) be modified to allow 
estimates of air pollutant emissions. This is, in fact, exactly what 
the paragraph does. The first word of paragraph 3 is ``estimate.'' 
However, even if the data are estimates the calculations involved in 
those estimates must be provided in detail so that the Commission can 
follow how the estimates were derived.
    The estimates are required for both existing (where appropriate) 
and proposed units. The information for existing units is in the 
existing permits for those units. With respect to the comment 
pertaining to duplication of effort, as with many of the environmental 
issues addressed by NEPA there are agencies which have specific 
responsibilities under other statutes, but that does not reduce the 
Commission's responsibility to know what the environmental impact of a 
project will be. This need to know does not in any way usurp another 
agency's jurisdiction. To the extent that the applicant has already 
initiated whatever review process may be required at other agencies, 
the Commission attempts to dovetail its analysis as a ``lead Federal 
agency'' with the review of the cooperating agencies.
    Williams is concerned that it may not be operationally feasible to 
obtain full load data. If this is the case the applicant should provide 
data taken as close to full load as possible and extrapolate to full 
load. As with any material specified in the resource reports the 
applicant should provide the best information available and indicate 
the constraints it faced in attempting to provide what was required. If 
that is not acceptable the staff will so inform the applicant.
    INGAA is concerned that Sec. 380.12(k)(4)(i) may not allow computer 
modeling and may require manual computations. This is not the case. 
However, if a computer model is used the filing must specify the 
program used and include the input data and all assumptions made in the 
model. We will modify Sec. 380.12(k)(4)(i) to read: ``Include step-by-
step supporting calculations or identify the computer program used to 
model the noise levels, the input and raw output data and all 
assumptions made when running the model, far-field sound level data for 
maximum facility operation, and the source of the data.''
    INGAA claims that the applicant frequently does not have specific 
information on the compressor units to be used for the project. We have 
found that more and more applications do in fact have this information. 
In fact, the generally long lead time required to order compressors 
means that an applicant who is interested in obtaining quick approval 
so its project can be placed in service quickly will have to have 
ordered compressors, or at least decided on what it intends to order 
prior to filing. Consequently, we will not change the requirement. 
However, as with all of the resource report material the applicant may 
give reasons why certain information is missing and provide a schedule 
for its submittal and the staff will determine if the filing is still 
acceptable.
    As to the 55dB(A) noise level, the intent is to have the noise 
limit apply to the new or modified compressor units. In order to 
clarify this, we will modify Sec. 380.12(k)(4)(v)(A) to read: ``The 
noise attributable to any new compressor station, compression added to 
an existing station, or any modification, upgrade, or update of an 
existing station must not exceed a day- night sound level 
(Ldn) of 55dBA at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area 
(such as schools, hospitals, or residences).

[[Page 26600]]

Alternatives
    New Sec. 380.12(l), Resource Report 10, requires pipelines to 
describe alternatives to projects and compare the environmental impacts 
of such alternatives to those of the proposal.
    Comments: INGAA and Williams object to the requirement in 
Sec. 380.12(l)(3) that alternative route information be provided at the 
same level of detail as the proposed route at the time of the 
application. They want the Commission to clarify that generalized 
information on alternative routes can be provided at the time of filing 
while additional information is collected.
    The Council states that the minimum filing requirements of Resource 
Report 4 (Cultural Resources) and Resource Report 10 (Alternatives) 
need to be coordinated.
    Commission Response: The alternatives referred to in Sec. 380.12(l) 
are alternatives the applicant considered in coming up with its 
proposal. The alternatives in Sec. 380.12(l)(2) are not to be discussed 
in the same detail as the filed location since they were rejected in 
the initial screening. The applicant must, however, provide sufficient 
discussion for the Commission to understand why the alternatives were 
rejected. The alternatives in Sec. 380.12(l)(3) should be discussed in 
more detail. Nevertheless, the only explicit requirement for material 
comparable to the proposed route is the maps showing the locations. The 
rest of the discussion does not require the same level of detail as 
long as tables of comparative environmental data can be provided. These 
tables should show the environmental reasons, if any, for not selecting 
the alternative and therefore should concentrate on the environmental 
features important to a comparison of the locations. The checklist 
clearly indicates that the same level of detail is not required at the 
time of filing.
    As to the Council's request for coordination, none is needed. The 
contents of resource report 10 do not necessarily assume detailed on 
the ground survey work. The purpose is for the Commission to decide if 
more detailed review of an alternative is required. The Commission does 
expect that the applicant will have determined the proposed facility 
locations based on its knowledge of the presence or absence of cultural 
resources. In other words, the proposed route will already minimize the 
number of cultural resources affected. Under these circumstances there 
is no reason to provide the same level of coverage to alternative 
routes.
    If there are cultural resources that fall under the consideration 
of section 106 that will still be affected by the proposed locations, 
then the Commission will determine the need to address alternative 
routes to avoid the effects. Avoidance is just another, albeit very 
important, mitigation measure available for consideration.
Section 380.13 Compliance with the Endangered Species Act
    New Secs. 380.13(b)(2)(i) and (iii) set forth the consultation 
requirements for compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
    Comments: Williams argues that the time frame for which the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has granted blanket clearances should 
govern, rather than putting a one-year limitation on such clearances.
    Interior states that Sec. 380.13(b)(2)(iii) should be modified to 
read:

    The consulted agency will provide a species and critical habitat 
list or concur with the species list provided within 30 days of its 
receipt of the initial request. In the event that the consulted 
agency does not provide this information within this time period, 
the project sponsor may notify the Director, OPR, and follow the 
procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.

    Commission Response: The reason the specifications in 
Secs. 380.13(b)(2)(i) and (ii) use a one-year expiration for FWS 
clearances is that the FWS regulations specify that informal 
consultation must be reinitiated within a year if the project hasn't 
started yet. The concern is that since new species are listed on a 
fairly regular basis, a clearance issued more than a year in advance 
may no longer be valid.
    We agree with Interior's proposed change to Sec. 380.13(b)(2)(iii) 
and will also clarify the intent of the last sentence by modifying the 
section to read:

    (iii) The consulted agency will provide a species and critical 
habitat list or concur with the species list provided within 30 days 
of its receipt of the initial request. In the event that the 
consulted agency does not provide this information within this time 
period, the project sponsor may notify the Director, OPR, and 
continue with the remaining procedures of this section.

Section 380.13(b)(3)(ii)(B)
    Comments: Interior requests that Sec. 380.13(b)(3)(ii)(B) be 
modified to read:

    ``That the project is not likely to adversely affect a listed 
species or critical habitat.''

    Commission Response: It is not clear what the intent of this 
comment is, since the NOPR did not propose a Sec. 380.13(b)(3)(ii)(B). 
However, if Interior's intent was to remove the reference to a time 
frame for response from the consulted agency because it is redundant 
with the similar statement in Sec. 380.13(b)(2)(iii), we will accept 
that comment. We will also modify Sec. 380.13(b)(3) to clarify the 
effect of what the NOPR referred to as a ``finding of no impact.'' 
Section 380.13(b)(3) will read as follows:

    (3) End of informal consultations. (i) At any time during the 
informal consultations, the consulted agency may determine or 
confirm: (A) That no listed or proposed species, or designated or 
proposed critical habitat, occurs in the project area; or (B) that 
the project is not likely to adversely affect a listed species or 
critical habitat. (ii) If the consulted agency provides this 
determination or confirmation then no further consultation is 
required.
Informal Consultations
    Comments: Interior states that Sec. 380.13(b)(5)(i) should be 
modified to read:

    If the consulted agency initially determines, pursuant to the 
informal consultations, that a listed species or its designated 
critical habitat may occur in the project area, the project sponsor 
must continue informal consultations with the consulted agency to 
determine if the proposed project may affect the species or 
designated critical habitat.

    Commission Response: We agree with Interior and will modify the 
first sentence as suggested.
Formal Consultations
    Comments: Interior states that Sec. 380.13(d)(3) should be modified 
to read:

    The Formal Consultation period concludes within 90 days of 
initiation, and the final biological opinion will be delivered 
within 45 days thereafter. The consultation can not be extended for 
more than 60 days without the consent of the project sponsor (50 CFR 
402.14(e)).

    Commission Response: We believe that this modification does not 
differ from the proposed wording of Secs. 380.13(d)(3) and (4), 
therefore it will not be used.

Section 380.14 Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act

    New Sec. 380.14 concerns compliance with the National Historic 
Preservation Act.
    Comments: Duke Energy and INGAA state that the proposal requires 
pipelines to consult with State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). 
They argue that if SHPOs issue blanket clearances for a certain time 
period, as are often issued by the FWS and

[[Page 26601]]

National Marine Fisheries Service for compliance with the Endangered 
Species Act, the rule should not require consultations. They contend 
that this position is consistent with the proposal in 
Sec. 380.13(b)(2).
    Williams shares the same concern and proposes that 
Sec. 380.14(a)(3) provide for blanket clearances. Williams believes 
that five year clearances are appropriate in the context of cultural 
resources when it may not be valid in the context of endangered 
species. It states that the status of endangered species and their 
critical habitat can change with some frequency, but cultural resources 
are in-place and static.
    The Council makes several comments specific to Sec. 380.14. It 
claims that the proposed rule does not distinctly spell out the 
Commission's nondelegable responsibility for decision-making under the 
NHPA. It believes it is unclear if all reports listed in Sec. 380.14 
and the guidance, including the Treatment Plan, are required at filing. 
It also points out that Sec. 380.14 fails to reference the Council's 
regulations at 36 CFR part 800. In line with its earlier comments 
concerning involvement of Indian tribes, it states that Indian tribes 
must be consulted whenever ``an undertaking may affect properties of 
historic value to an Indian tribe on non-Indian lands.'' (36 CFR 
800.1(c)(iii)). It suggests that terms of art such as ``undertaking'' 
should be defined. Finally, the Council asks the intent of 
Sec. 380.14(d).
    Commission Response: We do not currently, nor do we propose to set 
any time limits on the acceptability of letters demonstrating 
consultation with the SHPO unless the SHPO sets time limits. If the 
SHPO has provided consultation comments for a category of undertakings, 
the applicant may submit that letter as documentation of consultation. 
We will look at the letter and make sure it applies to the type of 
project proposed and that there are no circumstances which require 
Native Americans or others to be consulted, or other material to be 
filed.
    We disagree with the Council that our responsibilities are not 
properly identified. In the first sentence of section 380.14 the 
regulation clearly states our responsibility to ``take into account the 
effect of a proposed project on any historic property and to afford the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) an opportunity to 
comment on the undertaking.'' We go on to indicate that the project 
sponsor will assist us in this endeavor. We believe this is adequate 
recognition of our responsibilities under section 106.
    We believe that the rule clearly identifies filing requirements in 
at least two places. First, Appendix A, which contains the minimum 
filing requirements, clearly states that ``Overview/Survey Reports'' 
are required. This is also explicitly stated at Sec. 380.12(f)(2). 
Second, Sec. 380.12(f)(3) explicitly states that the Evaluation Report 
and Treatment Plan must be filed before a final certificate is issued.
    We will add specific reference to the Council regulations in 
Sec. 380.14(a) to read:

    ``* * * obligations under NHPA section 106 and the implementing 
regulations at 36 CFR part 800 by following the procedures at* * *''

    We already have included Indian tribes in Sec. 380.14 (a) and 
Sec. 380.14(d)--and not just for tribal lands, but as interested 
parties.
    ``Undertaking'' is really the only term of art used in the rule 
itself. All of the terms which may need definition are found in the 
guidelines and are either defined there or are stated to be as defined 
in 36 CFR part 800. We will replace the term ``undertaking'' in the 
rule since it may be unclear and implies, incorrectly, that all 
projects filed at the Commission are undertakings as defined in 36 CFR 
800.2. We will modify Sec. 380.14(a) to read:

    ``* * * opportunity to comment projects if required under 36 CFR 
part 800. The project sponsor,* * *''

    The comment questioning the intent of Sec. 380.14(d) refers to 
proposed Sec. 380.14(a)(4) and overlooks the fact that it lists the 
Council as one of the parties to the kind of ``agreement document'' 
under consideration. There is no reason to refer to the Council's 
comment when, in fact, such a document could very well incorporate the 
Council's comments implicitly. If it didn't, we presume that the 
Council would have made sure that getting such comments was explicitly 
mentioned. We contemplated that the Council would be a signatory to 
such an agreement.

Section 380.15 Siting and maintenance requirements.

    New Sec. 380.15 reflects the facility siting guidelines currently 
at Sec. 2.69.
    Comments: INGAA contends that the Commission should continue to 
treat these provisions as guidelines. It believes that a rigid 
application of these provisions could limit the balancing necessary to 
properly site a pipeline facility.
    The Council states that in Sec. 380.15 and elsewhere, wording 
should be revised so that the efforts to avoid as well as minimize 
effects to historic properties can be considered.
    Commission Response: INGAA is concerned Sec. 380.15 now includes 
the word ``requirements'' in the title and therefore it might be more 
restrictive. The title has changed but the wording is basically the 
same. The current regulations at Sec. 157.14(a)(6-c) requires that the 
applicant swear that these guidelines have been adopted and will be 
issued to the appropriate personnel and that the applicant provide a 
description of how they will be implemented. The new section avoids the 
need for a separate sworn exhibit, but adds no different obligation on 
the applicant. In the future, as now, the applicant is expected to use 
the guidelines. In addition, the wording continues to specify that the 
guidelines are to be used as practicable. Of course, the applicant can 
be asked to explain its failure to follow the guidelines and justify a 
decision that some part of them is not practical.
    We agree with the Council that avoidance of historic properties, 
where practical, is extremely important. That is why the proposed rule 
included this wording at Sec. 380.15(d)(2). However, in response to 
this comment we will add similar wording at the lead-in to this section 
at Sec. 380.15(a). We will change Sec. 380.15(a) to read

    ``* * * undertaken in a way that avoids or minimizes effects on 
scenic,* * *''.

    On further review, we note that old Sec. 2.69(a)(3)(vi) was 
inadvertently left out of Sec. 380.15. We will include a slightly 
modified version at new Sec. 380.15(f)(5).

G. Part 385--Rules of Practice and Procedure

    Part 385 sets forth the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure. The Commission is proposing to revise certain of the 
regulations under subpart T relating to the rejection of filings and to 
electronic filing of applications.

Subpart T--Formal Requirements for Filings in Proceedings Before the 
Commission

Section 385.2001--Filings (Rule 2001)

    Consistent with our proposal to reject patently deficient filings 
under Sec. 157.8 and Sec. 157.205(d), the Commission proposes to modify 
Sec. 385.2001(b)(3), dealing with rejection of filings, to provide for 
a letter of rejection indicating the reasons for rejection.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    The Office of Management of Budget's (OMB) regulations in 5 CFR 
1320.11 require that it approve certain reporting and record keeping 
requirements (collections of information) imposed by an agency. Upon 
approval of a

[[Page 26602]]

collection of information, OMB shall assign an OMB control number and 
an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of 
this Final Rule shall not be penalized for failing to respond to these 
collections of information unless the collections of information 
display valid OMB control numbers.
    The collections of information related to the subject of this Final 
Rule fall under FERC-537, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction, 
Acquisition, and Abandonment (OMB Control No. 1902-00060); FERC-539, 
Gas Pipelines Certificate: Import/Export Related (OMB Control No. 1902-
0062); and FERC-577, Environmental Impact Statement (Pipeline 
Certificate) (OMB Control No. 1902-0128).
    Under this Final Rule, the overall burden of filing will be reduced 
based on the elimination of certain filings by the rule. Further, the 
burden will be reduced by the elimination of the requirement to report 
all but cost information for prior notice activity in the annual 
report. On the whole, the Commission estimates that the revised 
reporting schedule will reduce the existing reporting burden by a total 
of 8,284 hours. Therefore, the Commission believes the overall burden 
on the industry will be lessened over time by the changes in the Final 
Rule.
    The burden estimates for complying with this proposed rule are as 
follows:

                                             Public Reporting Burden
                                            [Estimated Annual Burden]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     No. of           No. of         Hours of      Total annual
                Data collection                    respondents      responses        Response          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-537.......................................              50             11.2          245.82         137,660
FERC-539.......................................              12              1            218              2,616
FERC-577.......................................              70             16.8          154            181,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The total annual hours for collection (including record keeping) is 
estimated to be 321,996.
Information Collection costs: The average annualized cost for all 
respondents is projected to be the following:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Annualized
                                                                    Annualized         costs           Total
                         Data collection                           capital/sart-   (operations &    annualized
                                                                     up costs      maintenance)        costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-537........................................................         $30,000      $7,189,717      $7,219,717
FERC-539........................................................           7,200         136,639         143,829
FERC-577........................................................               0       9,494,751       9,494,751
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annualized costs for collection is estimated to be 
$3,313,844.
    None of the comments received in response to the NOPR specifically 
addressed the reporting burden or cost estimates. Further, we note 
that, as required under OMB's regulations, the Commission submitted the 
NOPR to OMB for review. OMB took no action on the NOPR. However, in 
response, OMB stated that the Commission should resubmit its 
information request when it takes final action.
    Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, 
Office of Chief Information Officer, Phone: (202) 208-1415, fax: (202) 
208-2425, e-mail [email protected]] or the Office of Management 
and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: 
Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 725 17th 
Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20503, Phone: 202-395-3087, fax: 202 395-
7285.

V. Environmental Analysis

    The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment 
or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a 
significant adverse effect on the human environment.34 The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these 
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment.35 The actions taken here fall 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.36 Therefore, an environmental assessment is 
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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).
    \35\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \36\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 37 
generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will 
have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The regulations adopted here impose requirements only on 
interstate pipelines, which are not small businesses. Accordingly, 
pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission hereby certifies 
that the regulations adopted herein will not have a significant adverse 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Effective Date

    These regulations become effective June 14, 1999. The Commission 
has concluded, 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 251 of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

[[Page 26603]]

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Natural gas, 
Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 153

    Exports, Imports, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 284

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

18 CFR Part 375

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Seals and insignia, 
Sunshine Act.

18 CFR Part 380

    Environmental impact statements, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

18 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Penalties, 
Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping.

    By the Commission.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend 
parts 2, 153, 157, 284, 375, 380, 381 and 385, Chapter I, Title 18, 
Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 2--GENERAL POLICY AND INTERPRETATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 
U.S.C. 792-825y, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4361, 7101-7352.


Sec. 2.1  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 2.1, paragraph (a)(1)(viii)(A)-(D) are removed.
    3. In Sec. 2.55, paragraph (a) is revised; (b)(1)(ii) is revised; 
(b)(4)(i) is removed and (b)(4)(ii) redesignated as (b)(4); and 
paragraph (d) is removed and reserved, to read as follows:


Sec. 2.55  Definition of terms used in section 7(c).

* * * * *
    (a) Auxiliary installations. (1) Installations (excluding gas 
compressors) which are merely auxiliary or appurtenant to an authorized 
or proposed transmission pipeline system and which are installations 
only for the purpose of obtaining more efficient or more economical 
operation of the authorized or proposed transmission facilities, such 
as: Valves; drips; pig launchers/receivers; yard and station piping; 
cathodic protection equipment; gas cleaning, cooling and dehydration 
equipment; residual refining equipment; water pumping, treatment and 
cooling equipment; electrical and communication equipment; and 
buildings.
    (2) Advance notification. If auxiliary facilities are to be 
installed:
    (i) On existing transmission facilities, then no notification is 
required;
    (ii) On, or at the same time as, certificated facilities which are 
not yet in service, then a description of the auxiliary facilities and 
their locations must be provided to the Commission at least 30 days in 
advance of their installation; or
    (iii) On and at the same time as facilities that are proposed, then 
the auxiliary facilities must be described in the environmental report 
specified in Sec. 380.12 or in a supplemental filing while the 
application is pending.
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The replacement facilities will have a substantially 
equivalent designed delivery capacity, will be located in the same 
right-of-way or on the same site as the facilities being replaced, and 
will be constructed using the temporary work space used to construct 
the original facility (See appendix A to this part 2 for guidelines on 
what is considered to be the appropriate work area in this context);
* * * * *
    (d) [Reserved]


Sec. 2.69  [Removed]

    4. Sec. 2.69 is removed and reserved.


Sec. 2.102  [Removed]

    5. Section 2.102 is removed and reserved.
    6. New Appendix A to part 2 is added to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 2--Guidance for Determining the Acceptable 
Construction Area for Replacements

    These guidelines shall be followed to determine what area may be 
used to construct the replacement facility. Specifically, they 
address what areas, in addition to the permanent right-of-way, may 
be used.
    Pipeline replacement must be within the existing right-of-way as 
specified by Sec. 2.55(b)(1)(ii). Construction activities for the 
replacement can extend outside the current permanent right-of-way if 
they are within the temporary and permanent right-of-way and 
associated work spaces used in the original installation.
    If documentation is not available on the location and width of 
the temporary and permanent rights-of-way and associated work space 
that was used to construct the original facility, the company may 
use the following guidance in replacing its facility, provided the 
appropriate easements have been obtained:
    a. Construction should be limited to no more than a 75-foot-wide 
right-of-way including the existing permanent right-of-way for large 
diameter pipeline (pipe greater than 12 inches in diameter) to carry 
out routine construction. Pipeline 12 inches in diameter and smaller 
should use no more than a 50-foot-wide right-of-way.
    b. The temporary right-of-way (working side) should be on the 
same side that was used in constructing the original pipeline.
    c. A reasonable amount of additional temporary work space on 
both sides of roads and interstate highways, railroads, and 
significant stream crossings and in side-slope areas is allowed. The 
size should be dependent upon site-specific conditions. Typical work 
spaces are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Item                   Typical extra area (width/length)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two lane road (bored)...............  25-50 by 100 feet.
Four lane road (bored)..............  50 by 100 feet.
Major river (wet cut)...............  100 by 200 feet.
Intermediate stream (wet cut).......  50 by 100 feet.
Single railroad track...............  25-50 by 100 feet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. The replacement facility must be located within the permanent 
right-of-way or, in the case of nonlinear facilities, the cleared 
building site. In the case of pipelines this is assumed to be 50-
feet-wide and centered over the pipeline unless otherwise legally 
specified.

    However, use of the above guidelines for work space size is 
constrained by the physical evidence in the area. Areas obviously not 
cleared during the original construction, as evidenced by stands of 
mature trees, structures, or other features that exceed the age of the 
facility being replaced, should not be used for construction of the 
replacement facility.
    If these guidelines cannot be met, the company should consult with 
the Commission's staff to determine if the exemption afforded by 
Sec. 2.55 may be used. If the exemption may not be used, construction 
authorization must be obtained pursuant to another regulation under the 
Natural Gas Act.

PART 153--APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, OR 
MODIFY FACILITIES FOR THE EXPORT OR IMPORT OF NATURAL GAS

    7. The authority citation for part 153 continues to read as 
follows:


[[Page 26604]]


    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717b, 717o; E.O. 10485, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 
Comp., p. 970, as amended by E.O. 12038, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 136, 
DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-112, 49 FR 6684 (February 22, 1984).

    8. In Sec. 153.8, paragraph (a)(7) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 153.8  Required exhibits.

    (a) * * *
    (7) Exhibit F. (i) An environmental report as specified in 
Sec. 380.3 and Sec. 380.12 of this chapter. Applicant must submit all 
appropriate revisions to Exhibit F whenever route or site changes are 
filed. These revisions should identify the specific differences 
resulting from the route or site changes, and not just provide revised 
totals for the resources affected; and
* * * * *
    9. In Sec. 153.21, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 153.21  Conformity with requirements.

* * * * *
     (b) Rejection of applications. If an application patently fails to 
comply with applicable statutory requirements or with applicable 
Commission rules, regulations, and orders for which a waiver has not 
been granted, the Director of the Office of Pipeline Regulation may 
reject the application within 10 days of filing as provided by 
Sec. 385.2001(b) of this chapter. This rejection is without prejudice 
to an applicant's refiling a complete application. However, an 
application will not be rejected solely on the basis of: Environmental 
reports that are incomplete because the company has not been granted 
access by the affected landowner(s) to perform required surveys, or 
environmental reports that are incomplete, but where the minimum 
checklist requirements of part 380, appendix A of this chapter have 
been met. An application that relates to an operation, service, or 
construction concerning which a prior application has been filed and 
rejected, shall be docketed as a new application. Such new application 
shall state the docket number of the prior rejected application.

PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND 
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER 
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

    10-11. The authority citation for Part 157 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    12. In Sec. 157.6, paragraphs(a) is revised; the heading of 
paragraph (b) is revised; a new sentence is added to paragraph (b)(7) 
and a new paragraph (b)(8) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 157.6  Applications; general requirements.

    (a) Applicable rules--(1) Submission required to be furnished by 
applicant under this subpart. Applications, amendments thereto, and all 
exhibits and other submissions required to be furnished by an applicant 
to the Commission under this subpart must be submitted in an original 
and 7 conformed copies. To the extent that data required under this 
subpart has been provided to the Commission, this data need not be 
duplicated. The applicant must, however, include a statement 
identifying the forms and records containing the required information 
and when that form or record was submitted.
    (2) The following must be submitted in electronic format as 
prescribed by the Commission:
    (i) Applications filed under this part 157 and all attached 
exhibits;
    (ii) Applications covering acquisitions and all attached exhibits;
     (iii) Applications for temporary certificates and all attached 
exhibits;
    (iv) Applications to abandon facilities or services and all 
attached exhibits;
    (v) The progress reports required under Sec. 157.20(c) and (d);
    (vi) Applications submitted under subpart E of this part and all 
attached exhibits;
    (vii) Applications submitted under subpart F of this part and all 
attached exhibits;
    (viii) Requests for authorization under the notice procedures 
established in Sec. 157.205 and all attached exhibits;
    (ix) The annual report required by Sec. 157.207;
    (x) The report required under Sec. 157.214 when storage capacity is 
increased;
    (xi) Amendments to any of the foregoing.
    (3) All filings must be signed in compliance with the following.
    (i) The signature on a filing constitutes a certification that: The 
signer has read the filing signed and knows the contents of the paper 
copies and electronic filing; the paper copies contain the same 
information as contained in the electronic filing; the contents as 
stated in the copies and in the electronic filing are true to the best 
knowledge and belief of the signer; and the signer possesses full power 
and authority to sign the filing.
    (ii) A filing must be signed by one of the following:
    (A) The person on behalf of whom the filing is made;
    (B) An officer, agent, or employee of the governmental authority, 
agency, or instrumentality on behalf of which the filing is made; or,
    (C) A representative qualified to practice before the Commission 
under Sec. 385.2101 of this chapter who possesses authority to sign.
    (4) Suitable means of electronic transmission or electronic media 
suitable for Commission filings are listed in the instructions for each 
form and filing. Lists of suitable electronic media are available upon 
request from the Commission. The formats for the electronic filing and 
paper copy can be obtained at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Public Information and Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    (5) Other requirements. Applications under section 7 of the Natural 
Gas Act must conform to the requirements of Secs. 157.5 through 157.14. 
Amendments to or withdrawals of applications must conform to the 
requirements of Secs. 385.213 and 385.214 of this chapter. If the 
application involves an acquisition of facilities, it must conform to 
the additional requirements prescribed in Secs. 157.15 and 157.16. If 
the application involves an abandonment of facilities or service, it 
must conform to the additional requirements prescribed in Sec. 157.18.
    (b) General content of application. * * *
    (7) * * * The form of notice shall also include the name, address, 
and telephone number of an authorized contact person.
    (8) For applications to construct new facilities, the complete 
information necessary for the Commission to make an upfront 
determination on the rate treatment of the proposed project in 
accordance with the Statement of Policy in Docket No. PL94-4-000, 
unless the applicant propose to charge incremental rates that are at or 
above the effective maximum part 284 rate. The Policy Statement can be 
found at 71 FERC para.61,241 (1995). Such information should include, 
but is not limited to the following:
    (i) Documentation specifically showing that an expansion project 
will increase system or operational reliability, or provide other 
financial benefits;
    (ii) Detailed cost-of-service data supporting the cost of the 
expansion project, a detailed study showing the revenue responsibility 
for each firm rate schedule under the pipeline's currently effective 
rate design and under the pipeline's proposed rolled-in rate

[[Page 26605]]

design, a detailed rate impact analysis by rate schedule (including by 
zone, if applicable), and an analysis reflecting the impact of the fuel 
usage resulting from the proposed expansion project (including by zone, 
if applicable).
* * * * *
    13. Sec. 157.8 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 157.8  Acceptance for filing or rejection of applications.

    Applications will be docketed when received and the applicant so 
advised. If an application patently fails to comply with applicable 
statutory requirements or with applicable Commission rules, 
regulations, and orders for which a waiver has not been granted, the 
Director of the Office of Pipeline Regulation may reject the 
application within 10 days of filing as provided by Sec. 385.2001(b) of 
this chapter. This rejection is without prejudice to an applicant's 
refiling a complete application. However, an application will not be 
rejected solely on the basis of: Environmental reports that are 
incomplete because the company has not been granted access by the 
affected landowner(s) to perform required surveys, or Environmental 
reports that are incomplete, but where the minimum checklist 
requirements of part 380, appendix A of this chapter have been met. An 
application which relates to an operation, sale, service, construction, 
extension, acquisition, or abandonment concerning which a prior 
application has been filed and rejected, shall be docketed as a new 
application. Such new application shall state the docket number of the 
prior rejected application.
     14. In Sec. 157.9, the first sentence is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 157.9  Notice of application.

    Notice of each application filed, except when rejected in 
accordance with Sec. 157.8, will be issued within 10 days of filing, 
and subsequently will be published in the Federal Register and copies 
of such notice mailed to States affected thereby. * * *
    15. Section 157.10 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 157.10  Interventions and protests.

    Notices of applications, as provided by Sec. 157.9, will fix the 
time within which any person desiring to participate in the proceeding 
may file a petition to intervene, and within which any interested 
regulatory agency, as provided by Sec. 385.214 of this chapter, 
desiring to intervene may file its notice of intervention. Any person 
filing a petition to intervene or notice of intervention shall state 
specifically whether he seeks formal hearing on the application. Any 
person may file to intervene on environmental grounds based on the 
draft environmental impact statement as stated at Sec. 380.10(a)(1)(i) 
of this chapter. In accordance with that section, such intervention 
will be deemed timely as long as it is filed within the comment period 
for the draft environmental impact statement. Failure to make timely 
filing will constitute grounds for denial of participation in the 
absence of extraordinary circumstances or good cause shown. A copy of 
each application, supplement and amendment thereto, including exhibits 
required by Secs. 157.14, 157.16, and 157.18, shall upon request be 
promptly supplied by the applicant to anyone who has filed a petition 
for leave to intervene or given notice of intervention. However, an 
applicant is not required to serve voluminous or difficult to reproduce 
material, such as copies of environmental information, to all parties, 
unless such material is specifically requested. Complete copies of the 
application must be available in each county in the project area, 
either in paper or electronic format, within three business days of 
filing an application. Within five business days of receiving a request 
for a complete copy from any party, the applicant must serve a full 
copy of any filing on the requesting party. Pipelines must keep all 
voluminous material on file with the Commission and make such 
information available for inspection at buildings with public access 
and with evening and weekend business hours, such as libraries located 
in each county in the project area. Protests may be filed in accordance 
with Sec. 385.211 of this chapter within the time permitted by any 
person who does not seek to participate in the proceeding.
    16. In Sec. 157.14, paragraph (a) is amended to remove the words 
``On or after October 31, 1989, exhibits'' and the word ``Exhibits'' is 
added in its place; paragraph (a)(6-a) is revised; paragraph (a)(6-b), 
(a)(6-c) and (a)(6-d) are removed; paragraph (a)(12) is removed and 
reserved; paragraphs (a)(14)(i)-(vi) are revised; and paragraphs 
(a)(14) (vii)-(xiii) are removed, all to read as follows:


Sec. 157.14  Exhibits.

    (a) * * *
    (6-a) Exhibit F-I, Environmental Report. An environmental report as 
specified in Secs.  380.3 and 380.12 of this chapter. Applicant must 
submit all appropriate revisions to Exhibit F-I whenever route or site 
changes are filed. These revisions should identify the locations by 
mile post and describe all other specific differences resulting from 
the route or site changes, and should not simply provide revised totals 
for the resources affected.
* * * * *
    (12) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (14) * * *
    (i) A description of the class (e.g., commercial paper, long-term 
debt, preferred stock) and cost rates for securities expected to be 
issued with construction period and post- operational sources of 
financing separately identified.
    (ii) Statement of anticipated cash flow, including provision during 
the period of construction and the first 3 full years of operation of 
proposed facilities for interest requirements, dividends, and capital 
requirements.
    (iii) A balance sheet and income statement (12 months) of most 
recent data available.
    (iv) Comparative pro forma balance sheets and income statements for 
the period of construction and each of the first 3 full years of 
operation, giving effect to the proposed construction and proposed 
financing of the project.
    (v) Any additional data and information upon which applicant 
proposes to rely in showing the adequacy and availability of resources 
for financing its proposed project.
    (vi) In instances for which principal operations of the company 
have not commenced or where proposed rates for services are developed 
on an incremental basis, a brief statement explaining how the applicant 
will determine the actual allowance for funds used during construction 
(AFUDC) rate, or if a rate is not to be used, how the applicant will 
determine the actual amount of AFUDC to be capitalized as a component 
of construction cost, and why the method is appropriate under the 
circumstances.
* * * * *
    17. In Sec. 157.16, paragraph (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 157.16  Exhibits relating to acquisitions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The amounts recorded upon the books of the vendor, as being 
applicable to the facilities to be acquired, and the related 
depreciation, depletion, and amortization reserves. Include a brief 
statement explaining the basis or methods used to derive the related 
depreciation, depletion and amortization reserves.
* * * * *

[[Page 26606]]

Sec. 157.17  [Amended]

    18. In Sec. 157.17, the words ``Before October 31, 1989, and 
thereafter whenever'' are removed from paragraph (a) and the word 
``Whenever'' is added in their place; and the words ``On or after 
October 31, 1989, the'' are removed from paragraph (b) and the word 
``The'' is added in their place.
    19. In Sec. 157.18, new sentences are added between the first and 
second sentence in the introductory text and paragraph (f)(2); and the 
first sentence in paragraph (f)(3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 157.18  Applications to abandon facilities or service; exhibits.

    * * * Any application for an abandonment that is not excluded by 
Sec. 380.4(a)(28) or (29), must include an environmental report as 
specified by Sec. 380.3(c)(2). * * *
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * * Include a brief statement explaining the basis or methods 
used to derive the accumulated depreciation related to the property to 
be disposed of. * * *
    (3) State the amount of accumulated deferred income taxes 
attributable to the property to be abandoned and the tax basis of the 
property. * * *
* * * * *
    20. In Sec. 157.20, paragraph (b) is revised; the phrases ``, until 
October 13, 1989,'' and `` and thereafter,'' are removed from 
paragraph, (c) introductory text, and paragraph (c)(2) is removed; 
paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) are redesignated as (c)(2) and (c)(3); the 
phrases ``, before October 13, 1989,'' and ``and thereafter'' are 
removed from paragraph (d), introductory text and paragraph (d)(1) is 
removed; paragraph (d)(2) and (d)(3) are redesignated as (d)(1) and 
(d)(2); redesignated paragraph (d)(2) is revised; paragraph (f) is 
removed; paragraph (g) is redesignated as (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 157.20  General conditions applicable to certificates.

* * * * *
    (b) Any authorized construction, extension, or acquisition shall be 
completed and made available for service by applicant and any 
authorized operation, service, or sale shall be available for regular 
performance by applicant within (period of time to be specified by the 
Commission in each order) from the issue date of the Commission's order 
issuing the certificate. Applicant shall notify the Commission in 
writing no later than 10 days after expiration of this time period that 
the end-user/shipper is unable to meet the imposed timetable to 
commence service.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) within 10 days after authorized facilities have been 
constructed and within 10 days after such facilities have been placed 
in service or any authorized operation, sale, or service has commenced, 
notice of the date of such completion, placement, and commencement, and
* * * * *


Sec. 157.21  [Removed]

     21. Section 157.21 is removed and reserved.
    22. In Sec. 157.102, the last sentence in paragraph (a)(1) is 
removed; paragraph (b)(1)(v) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 157.102  Contents of application and other pleadings.

* * * * *
    (b) * *  *
    (1) * * *
    (v) An environmental report as specified in Sec. 380.3 and 
Sec. 380.12 of this chapter. Applicant must submit all appropriate 
revisions to the environmental report whenever route or site changes 
are filed. These revisions must identify and describe the specific 
differences resulting from the route or site changes. Revised totals 
for the resources affected will not be sufficient; and
* * * * *


Sec. 157.103  [Amended]

    23. In Sec. 157.103(j), the words ``and Producer'' are removed from 
the reference to the ``Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation.''


Sec. 157.201  [Amended]

    24. In Sec. 157.201(a) the words ``sales arrangements'' are 
removed.
    25. In Sec. 157.202, paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii)(A), (B), (D), 
(E), and (F), and paragraphs (b)(4), (5), (6), (7), (10) and (12) are 
revised; and (b)(13)-(14) are removed to read as follows:


Sec. 157.202  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2)(i) Eligible facility means, except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section, any facility subject to the Natural Gas Act 
jurisdiction of the Commission that is necessary to provide service 
within existing certificated levels. Eligible facility also includes 
any gas supply facility or any facility, including receipt points, 
needed by the certificate holder to receive gas into its system for 
further transport or storage, and interconnecting points between 
transporters that transport natural gas under Part 284 of this chapter. 
Further, eligible facility includes main line, lateral, and compressor 
replacements that do not qualify under Sec. 2.55(b) of this chapter 
because they will result in an incidental increase in the capacity of 
main line facilities, or because they will not satisfy the location or 
work space requirements of Sec. 2.55(b). Replacements must be done for 
sound engineering purposes. Replacements for the primary purpose of 
creating additional main line capacity are not eligible facilities.
    (ii) * * *
    (A) A main line of a transmission system, except replacement 
facilities covered under Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(i).
    (B) An extension of a main line, except replacement facilities 
covered under Sec. 157.202(b)(2)(i).
* * * * *
    (D) A facility required to test, develop or utilize an underground 
storage field or that alters the certificated capacity, deliverability, 
or storage boundary, or a facility required to store gas above ground 
in either a gaseous or liquified state, or a facility used to receive 
gas from plants manufacturing synthetic gas or from plants gasifying 
liquefied natural gas.
    (E) Delivery points under Sec. 157.211.
    (F) Temporary compression under Sec. 157.209.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (4) Temporary compression means compressor facilities installed and 
operated at existing compressor locations for the limited purpose of 
temporarily replacing existing permanent compressor facilities that are 
undergoing maintenance or repair or that are pending permanent 
replacement.
    (5) Main line means the principal transmission facilities of a 
pipeline system extending from supply areas to market areas and does 
not include small diameter supply or delivery laterals or gathering 
lines.
    (6) Miscellaneous rearrangement of any facility means any 
rearrangement of a facility that does not result in any change of 
service rendered by means of the facilities involved, including changes 
in existing field operations or relocation of existing facilities:
    (i) On the same property;
    (ii) When required by highway construction, dam construction, or 
the expansion or change of course of rivers, streams or creeks; or
    (iii) To respond to other natural forces beyond the certificate 
holder's control when necessary to ensure safety or maintain the 
operational integrity of the certificate holder's facilities.

[[Page 26607]]

    (7) Project means a unit of improvement or construction that is 
used and useful upon completion.
* * * * *
    (10) Delivery point means a tap and/or metering and appurtenant 
facilities, such as heaters, minor gas conditioning, treatment, 
odorization, and similar equipment, necessary to enable the certificate 
holder to deliver gas to any party.
* * * * *
    (12) Interconnecting point means only the interconnecting 
facilities such as the tap, metering, M&R facilities and minor related 
piping.
* * * * *


Sec. 157.203  [Amended]

    26. In Sec. 157.203, paragraph(b) is amended to change the 
reference from ``Sec. 157.211(a)'' to ``Sec. 157.211(a)(1),'' remove 
the references to ``Sec. 157.213(a)'' and ``Sec. 157.217'' and to add 
the reference to ``Sec. 157.209(a)'' in their place. Paragraph (c) is 
amended to remove the references to ``Sec. 157.211, ``Sec. 157.211(b)'' 
and ``Sec. 157.212, Sec. 157.213(b)'' and to add the reference 
``Sec. 157.211(a)(2)'' in their place.


Sec. 157.204  [Amended]

    27. In Sec. 157.204, paragraph (d)(2) is removed; paragraph (d)(3) 
is redesignated as d(2); and paragraphs (d)(3), (4), and (5) and 
paragraph (e) are removed.
    28. In Sec. 157.205, paragraphs (a), introductory text, and (b), 
introductory text, are revised; paragraph (c) is removed; paragraphs 
(d)--(i) are redesignated as (c)--(h); in paragraph(a)(2) add the words 
``or dismissed'' after the word ``withdrawn''; a sentence is added at 
the end of paragraph (b)(5); in paragraph (b)(6) the reference to 
``paragraph (d)'' is changed to ``paragraph (c)''; redesignated 
paragraph (c) is revised; in redesignated paragraph (d) the first 
sentence is revised; in redesignated paragraph (f) the words ``and 
Producer'' are removed from the reference to the ``Director of Pipeline 
and Producer Regulation''; the form in redesignated paragraph (e)(2) is 
revised; in redesignated paragraph (f) add the words ``or dismissed'' 
after the words ``is not withdrawn''; and in redesignated paragraph (g) 
the heading is revised, the words ``and staff'' are removed and the 
word ``and'' is added between ``certificate holder'' and ``protestor'', 
and sentences are added at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:


Sec. 157.205  Notice Procedure.

    (a) Applicability. No activity described in Secs. 157.208(b), 
157.211(a)(2), 157.214 or 157.216(b) is authorized by a blanket 
certificate granted under this subpart, unless, prior to undertaking 
such activity:
* * * * *
    (b) Contents. For any activity subject to the requirements of this 
section, the certificate holder must file with the Secretary of the 
Commission an original and seven copies, as prescribed in 
Secs. 157.6(a) and 385.2011 of this chapter, a request for 
authorization under the notice procedures of this section that 
contains:
* * * * *
    (5) * * * The form of notice shall also include the name, address, 
and telephone number of an authorized contact person.
* * * * *
    (c) Rejection of request. The Director of the Office of Pipeline 
Regulation shall reject within 10 days of the date of filing a request 
which patently fails to comply with the provisions of paragraph (b) of 
this section, without prejudice to the pipeline's refiling a complete 
application.
    (d) Publication of notice of request. Unless the request has been 
rejected pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, the Secretary of 
the Commission shall issue a notice of the request within 10 days of 
the date of the filing, which will then be published in the Federal 
Register. * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *

United States of America Before the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission

    [Name of pipeline holding the blanket certificate] Docket No. 
[Include both docket no. of the blanket certificate and the prior 
notice transaction]

Protest to Proposed Blanket Certificate Activity

    (Name of Protestor) hereby protests the request filed by (Name 
of pipeline) to conduct a (construction of facilities, abandonment, 
etc.) under Sec. 157.---- of the Commission's regulations. Protestor 
seeks to have this request processed as a separate application.
    (Include a detailed statement of Protestor's interest in the 
activity and the specific reasons and rationale for the objection 
and whether the protestor seeks to be an intervener.)
* * * * *
    (g) Withdrawal or dismissal of protests. * * * Within 10 days of 
the filing of a protest, the Director of the Office of Pipeline 
Regulation will dismiss that protest if it does not raise a substantive 
issue and fails to provide any specific detailed reason or rationale 
for the objection. If a protest is dismissed, the notice requirements 
of this section will not be fulfilled until the earlier of: (1) a 30 
day period following the deadline determined in paragraph (d) of this 
section has run; or the dismissed protesting party notifying the 
Secretary of the Commission that its concerns have been resolved.
* * * * *
    29. In Sec. 157.206, paragraphs (b) and (c) are removed; paragraph 
(d) is redesignated as paragraph (b); paragraph (f) is redesignated as 
(c); paragraph (g) is redesignated as (d); redesignated (b) is amended 
to add an introductory text; redesignated (b)(1) is revised; in 
redesignated (b)(3)(i)-(iii) the references to paragraph (d) are 
removed and a reference to (b) is added in its place; redesignated 
(b)(5) is revised; redesignated paragraph (c) is revised; and 
paragraphs (e)-(h) are removed to read as follows:


Sec. 157.206  Standard conditions.

* * * * *
    (b) Environmental compliance. This paragraph only applies to 
activities that involve ground disturbance or changes to operational 
air and noise emissions.
    (1) The certificate holder shall adopt the requirements set forth 
in Sec. 380.15 of this chapter for all activities authorized by the 
blanket certificate and shall issue the relevant portions thereof to 
construction personnel, with instructions to use them.
* * * * *
    (5) The noise attributable to any new compressor station, 
compression added to an existing station, or any modification, upgrade 
or update of an existing station, must not exceed a day-night level 
(Ldn) of 55 dBA at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area 
(such as schools, hospitals, or residences).
* * * * *
    (c) Commencement. Any authorized construction, extension, or 
acquisition shall be completed and made available for service by the 
certificate holder and any authorized operation, or service, shall be 
available within one year of the date the activity is authorized 
pursuant to Sec. 157.205(h). The certificate holder may apply to the 
Director of the Office of Pipeline Regulation for an extension of this 
deadline due to construction delays. However, if the request for 
extension is due to the end-user/shipper not being ready to accept 
service, the certificate holder must so notify the Commission in 
writing no later than 10 days after expiration of the one-year period.
    30. In Sec. 157.207, paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised; paragraph 
(f) is removed; paragraphs (g) and (h) are redesignated

[[Page 26608]]

as paragraphs (f) and (g) and paragraph (h) is removed to read as 
follows:


Sec. 157.207  General reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) For each delivery point authorized under Sec. 157.211(a)(1), 
the information required by Sec. 157.211(c);
    (c) for each temporary compressor facility under Sec. 157.209, the 
information required by Sec. 157.209(b);
* * * * *
    31. In Sec. 157.208, the heading is revised; the paragraph 
designations (1) and (2) are removed from paragraphs (a) and (b); in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) add the word ``replace'' after the word 
``construct'' and add a new sentence at the end; remove paragraphs 
(c)(6) and (c)(8); paragraph (c)(7) is redesignated as (c)(6), 
paragraphs (c)(9)-(11) are redesignated as (c)(7)-(9); in redesignated 
(c)(9) the first sentence is revised and a new sentence is added at the 
end; in paragraph (d) the reference to ``GNP'' is removed and a 
reference to ``GDP'' is added in its place, the words ``and Producer'' 
are removed from the phrase ``Director of Pipeline and Producer 
Regulation'', and the reference to Sec. 375.307(t) is corrected to 
Sec. 375.307(d); paragraph (e), the introductory text, and paragraph 
(e)(2) are revised, paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5) are removed; paragraph 
(e)(8) is redesignated as (e)(4), paragraph (e)(9) is redesignated as 
(e)(5), and paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) are removed; the second sentence 
of paragraph (f)(2) is revised; and in paragraph (g) the words ``and 
Producer'' are removed from the phrase ``Director of Pipeline and 
Producer Regulation'' to read as follows:


Sec. 157.208  Construction, acquisition, operation, replacement, and 
miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities.

    (a) * * * The certificate holder shall not segment projects in 
order to meet the cost limitations set forth in column 1 of Table I.
* * * * *
    (b) * * * The certificate holder shall not segment projects in 
order to meet the cost limitations set forth in column 2 of Table I.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (9) A concise analysis discussing the relevant issues outlined in 
Sec. 380.12 of this chapter. * * * Include a copy of the agreements 
received for compliance with the Endangered Species Act, National 
Historic Preservation Act, and Coastal Zone Management Act.
* * * * *
    (e) Reporting requirements. For each facility completed during the 
calendar year pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the 
certificate holder shall file in the manner prescribed in 
Secs. 157.6(a) and 385.2011 of this chapter as part of the required 
annual report under Sec. 157.207(a) the information described in 
paragraphs (e)(1)-(5) of this section. For each facility completed 
during the calendar year pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the 
certificate holder shall file in the manner prescribed above only the 
information described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
    (1) * * *
    (2) The specific purpose, location, and beginning and completion 
date of construction of the facilities installed, the date service 
commenced, and, if applicable, a statement indicating the extent to 
which the facilities were jointly constructed;
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * * In the event that the certificate holder thereafter 
wishes to change the maximum operating pressure of lateral facilities 
constructed under section 7(c) or facilities constructed under this 
section 157.208, it shall file an appropriate request pursuant to the 
procedures set forth in Sec. 157.205(b).* * *
* * * * *
    32. New Sec. 157.209 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 157.209  Temporary compression facilities.

    (a) Automatic authorization. If the cost does not exceed the cost 
limitations set forth in column 1 of Table I, under Sec. 158.208(d) of 
this chapter, the certificate holder may install, operate and remove 
temporary facilities provided that the temporary compressor facilities 
shall not be used to increase the volume or service above that rendered 
by the involved existing permanent compressor unit(s).
    (b) Reporting requirements. As part of the certificate holder's 
annual report of projects authorized under paragraph (a) of this 
section, the certificate holder must report the following in the manner 
prescribed in Secs. 157.6(a) and 385.2011 of this chapter;
    (1) A description of the temporary compression facility, including 
the size, type and number of compressor units;
    (2) The location at which temporary compression was installed, 
operated and removed, including its location relative to existing 
facilities;
    (3) A description of the permanent compression facility which was 
unavailable, and a statement explaining the reason for the temporary 
compression;
    (4) The dates for which the temporary compression was installed, 
operated and removed; and
    (5) If applicable, the information required in Sec. 157.208(e)(4).


Sec. 157.210  [Removed]

    33. Section 157.210 is removed and reserved.
    34. In Sec. 157.211, the heading, paragraphs (a), (b)(1)-(5), and 
(c)(1)-(3) are revised, a new paragraph (c)(4) is added, and paragraph 
(d) is removed to read as follows:


Sec. 157.211  Delivery points.

    (a) Construction and operation--(1) Automatic authorization. The 
certificate holder may acquire, construct, replace, modify, or operate 
any delivery point, excluding the construction of certain delivery 
points subject to the prior notice provisions in paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section if:
    (i) The natural gas is being delivered to, or for the account of, a 
shipper for whom the certificate holder is, or will be, authorized to 
transport gas; and
    (ii) The certificate holder's tariff does not prohibit the addition 
of new delivery points.
    (2) Prior notice. Subject to the notice procedure in Sec. 157.205, 
the certificate holder may acquire, construct, replace, modify, or 
operate any delivery point if:
    (i) The natural gas is being delivered to, or for the account of, 
an end-user that is currently being served by a local distribution 
company; and
    (ii) The natural gas is being delivered to a shipper for whom the 
certificate holder is, or will be, authorized to transport gas; and
    (iii) The certificate holder's tariff does not prohibit the 
addition of new delivery points.
    (b) * * *
    (1) The name of the end-user, the location of the delivery point, 
and the distribution company currently serving the end-user;
    (2) A description of the facility and any appurtenant facilities;
    (3) A USGS 7\1/2\-minute series (scale 1:24,000 or 1:25,000) 
topographic map (or map of equivalent or greater detail, as 
appropriate) showing the location of the proposed facilities;
    (4) The quantity of gas to be delivered through the proposed 
facility;
    (5) A description, with supporting data, of the impact of the 
service rendered through the proposed delivery tap upon the certificate 
holder's peak day and annual deliveries.
    (c) * * *
    (1) A description of the facilities acquired, constructed, 
replaced, modified or operated pursuant to this section;

[[Page 26609]]

    (2) The location and maximum quantities delivered at such delivery 
point;
    (3) The actual cost and the completion date of the delivery point; 
and
    (4) The date of each agreement obtained pursuant to 
Sec. 157.206(b)(3) and the date construction began.


Sec. 157.212  [Removed]

    35. Section 157.212 is removed and reserved.


Sec. 157.213  [Removed]

    36. Section 157.213 is removed and reserved.
    37. In Sec. 157.215, paragraph (a), introductory texts and 
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 157.215  Underground storage testing and development.

    (a) Automatic authorization. The certificate holder is authorized 
to acquire, construct and operate natural gas pipeline and compression 
facilities, including injection, withdrawal, and observation wells for 
the testing or development of underground reservoirs for the possible 
storage of gas, if:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The cost of such facilities, the date construction began, and 
the date they were placed in service;
* * * * *
    38. In Sec. 157.216, amend the introductory text of paragraph (a) 
to remove the words ``facilities, if'' and add the words ``facilities, 
and'' in its place; paragraphs (a) (1) and (2), (b), (c) (1) and (3), 
and (d) (1), (2), and (4) are revised; and new paragraphs (c)(5) and 
(d)(5) are added to read as follows:


Sec. 157.216  Abandonment.

    (a) * * *
    (1) a receipt or delivery point, or related supply or delivery 
lateral, provided the facility has not been used to provide:
    (i) Interruptible transportation service during the one year period 
prior to the effective date of the proposed abandonment, or
    (ii) Firm transportation service during the one year period prior 
to the effective date of the proposed abandonment, provided the point 
is no longer covered under a firm contract; or
    (2) An eligible facility that was installed pursuant to automatic 
authority under Sec. 157.208(a), or that now qualifies for automatic 
authority under Sec. 157.208(a), provided the certificate holder 
obtains the written consent of the customers served through such 
facility. Consent is required from customers that have received service 
during the past 12 months.
    (b) Prior Notice. Subject to the notice requirements of 
Sec. 157.205, the certificate holder is authorized pursuant to section 
7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon:
    (1) Any receipt or delivery point if all of the existing customers 
of the pipeline served through the receipt or delivery point consent in 
writing to the abandonment. When filing a request for authorization of 
the proposed abandonment under the notice procedures of Sec. 157.205, 
the certificate holder shall notify, in writing, the State public 
service commission having regulatory authority over retail service to 
the customers served through the delivery point.
    (2) Any other facility which qualifies as an eligible facility, and 
which is not otherwise eligible for automatic authorization under 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, provided the certificate holder 
obtains the written consent of all of the customers served through such 
facility. Consent is required from customers that have received service 
during the immediate past 12 months.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The location, type, size, and length of the subject facilities;
* * * * *
    (3) For each facility an oath statement that all of the customers 
served during the past year by the subject facilities have consented to 
the abandonment, or an explanation of why the customers' consent is not 
available;
* * * * *
    (5) For any abandonment resulting in earth disturbance, a USGS 7\1/
2\-minute-series (scale 1:24,000 or 1:25,000) topographic map (or map 
of equivalent or greater detail, as appropriate) showing the location 
of the proposed facilities.
    (d) * * *
    (1) A description of the facilities abandoned pursuant to this 
section;
    (2) The docket number(s) of the certificate(s) authorizing the 
construction and operation of the facilities to be abandoned;
* * * * *
    (4) The date earth disturbance, if any, related to the abandonment 
began and the date the facilities were abandoned; and
    (5) The date of the agreements obtained pursuant to 
Sec. 157.206(b)(3), if earth disturbance was involved.
    39. In Sec. 157.217 paragraph (a) and (b)(2) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 157.217  Changes in rate schedules.

    (a) Automatic authorization. The certificate holder is authorized 
to permit an existing customer, at the customer's request, to change 
from Part 157 individually certificated transportation or storage 
service to Part 284 transportation or storage service, and to abandon 
the Part 157 service, if:
    (1) The combined volumetric limitations on deliveries to the 
customer under both rate schedules are not increased, for either annual 
or peak day limitations;
    (2) The conversion will reflect all the maximum rates and charges 
associated with the service;
    (3) The changes are consistent with the terms of the effective 
tariffs on file with the Commission. The certificate holder is granted 
a limited waiver of its tariff requiring posting of available capacity.
* * * * *
    (b) *  * *
    (2) The rate schedules and associated rates involved; and
* * * * *
    40. In Sec. 157.218, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 157.218  Changes in customer name.

    (a) Automatic authorization. The effective certificates of the 
certificate holder may be amended to the extent necessary to reflect 
the change in the name of an existing customer, if the certificate 
holder has filed any necessary conforming changes in its Index of 
Customers, including the customer's old name.
* * * * *
    41. In Appendix I to Subpart F of Part 157, in the reference to 
``Sec. 157.206(d)(3)(i)'' in the heading and the references to 
Sec. 157.206(d)'' and ``Sec. 157.206(d)(7)'' in the introductory text, 
the (d) is removed and a (b) is added in its place; the references to 
``Sec. 157.206(d)(2)(vii)'' in paragraphs 2, 3 is removed and 
``Sec. 157.206(b)(2)(vi)'' is added in its place, and paragraph 4(b) is 
revised to read as follows:

Appendix I to Subpart F of Part 157--Procedures for Compliance With the 
Endangered Species Act OF 1973 Under Sec. 157.206(b)(3)(i)

    * * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (b) The certificate holder shall be deemed in compliance with 
Sec. 157.206(b)(2)(vi) of the Commission's regulations if the 
consulted agency agrees with the certificate holder's determination 
resulting from the continued informal consultations, that the 
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, or that no further consultation is necessary.
* * * * *
    42. Appendix II to Subpart F of Part 157 is revised to read as 
follows:

[[Page 26610]]

Appendix II to Subpart F--Procedures for Compliance With the National 
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Under Sec. 157.206(b)(3)(ii)

    The following procedures apply to any certificate holder which 
undertakes a project under the authority of a blanket certificate 
issued pursuant to subparts E or F of part 157 and to any other 
service subject to Sec. 157.206(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's (Commission) regulations. For the purposes of this 
appendix, the following definitions apply:
    (a) ``Listed property'' means any district, site, building, 
structure or object which is listed (1) on the National Register of 
Historic Places, or (2) in the Federal Register as a property 
determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register.
    (b) ``SHPO'' means the State Historic Preservation Officer or 
any alternative person duly designated, in accordance with section 
(1)(b) of Appendix II to Subpart F, to advise on cultural resource 
matters.
    (c) ``Unlisted property'' means any district, site, building, 
structure or object which is not a listed property.
    (d) ``THPO'' means the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer.
    The certificate holder shall be deemed to be in compliance with 
Sec. 157.206(b)(2)(iii) of the Commission's regulations only if, 
prior to constructing facilities or abandoning facilities by removal 
under the blanket certificate, it complies with the following 
procedures:
    (1)(a) If federally administered land would be directly affected 
by the project, then the procedures used by the appropriate Tribal 
or Federal land managing agency to comply with section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470f, shall 
take precedence over these procedures. The procedures in this 
appendix apply to State and private lands, and Federal lands for 
which there are no other Federal procedures.
    (b) If there is no SHPO, or THPO, if appropriate, or if the 
SHPO, or THPO, as appropriate, declines to consult with the 
certificate holder, the certificate holder shall so inform the 
environmental staff of the Office of Pipeline Regulation and shall 
not proceed with these procedures or the project until an alternate 
consultant has been duly designated.
    (2) It shall be the certificate holder's responsibility to 
identify or cause to be identified listed properties and unlisted 
properties that satisfy the National Register Criteria for 
Evaluation (36 CFR 1202.6), that are located within the area of the 
project's potential environmental impact and that may be affected by 
the undertaking.
    (3) The certificate holder shall:
    (a) Check the National Register of Historic Places and consult 
with the SHPO, or THPO, as appropriate, to identify all listed 
properties within the area of the project's potential environmental 
impact;
    (b) Consult with the SHPO, or THPO, as appropriate, and to the 
extent deemed appropriate by the SHPO, or THPO, as appropriate, 
check public records and consult with other individuals and 
organizations with historical and cultural expertise, to determine 
whether unlisted properties that satisfy the National Register 
Criteria for Evaluation are known or likely to occur within the area 
of the project's potential environmental impact; and
    (c) Consult with the SHPO, or THPO, as appropriate, to determine 
the need for surveys to identify unknown unlisted properties. The 
certificate holder shall evaluate the eligibility of any known 
unlisted properties located within the area of the project's 
potential environmental impact according to the National Register 
Criteria for Evaluation.
    (4) The certificate holder shall be deemed in compliance with 
Sec. 157.206(b)(2)(iii) of the Commission's regulations if the SHPO, 
or THPO, as appropriate, agrees with the certificate holder that no 
survey is required, and that no listed properties or unlisted 
properties that satisfy the National Register Criteria for 
Evaluation occur in the area of the project's potential 
environmental impact.
    (5) If the SHPO, or THPO, as appropriate, determines that 
surveys are required to ensure that no listed properties, or 
unlisted properties that satisfy the National Register Criteria for 
Evaluation, occur within the area of the project's potential 
environmental impact, the certificate holder shall perform surveys 
deemed by the SHPO, or THPO, as appropriate, to be of sufficient 
scope and intensity to identify and evaluate such properties. The 
certificate holder shall submit the results of the surveys including 
a statement as to which unlisted properties satisfy the National 
Register Criteria for Evaluation, to the SHPO and solicit comments 
on the surveys and the conclusions.
    (6) The certificate holder shall be deemed in compliance with 
Sec. 157.206(b)(2)(iii) of the Commission's regulations if, upon 
conclusion of the surveys, the certificate holder and the SHPO, or 
THPO, as appropriate, agree that no listed properties, and no 
unlisted properties which satisfy the National Register Criteria for 
Evaluation, occur in the area of the project's potential 
environmental impact.
    (7) For each listed property, and each unlisted property which 
satisfies the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, which is 
located within the area of the project's potential environmental 
impact, the certificate holder, in consultation with the SHPO, shall 
apply the Criteria of Effect (36 CFR 800.5) to determine whether the 
project will have an effect upon the historical, architectural, 
archeological, or cultural characteristics of the property that 
qualified it to meet National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The 
certificate holder shall be deemed in compliance with 
Sec. 157.206(b)(2)(iii) of the Commission's regulations if the 
certificate holder and the SHPO agree that the project will not 
affect these characteristics.
    (8) If either the certificate holder or the SHPO, or THPO, as 
appropriate, finds that the project may affect a listed property or 
an unlisted property which satisfies the National Register Criteria 
for Evaluation, located within the area of the project's potential 
environmental impact, then the project shall not be authorized under 
the blanket certificate unless such properties can be avoided by 
relocation of the project to an area where the SHPO, or THPO, as 
appropriate, agrees that no listed properties or unlisted properties 
that satisfy the National Register Criteria for Evaluation occur. 
The certificate holder shall be deemed in compliance with 
Sec. 157.206(b)(2)(iii) of the Commission's regulations if the 
project is relocated as described above.
    (9) If the certificate holder and the SHPO, or THPO, as 
appropriate, are unable to agree upon the need for a survey, the 
adequacy of a survey, or the results of application of the National 
Register Criteria for Evaluation to an unlisted property, the 
project shall not be authorized under the blanket certificate.

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

    43. The authority citation for part 284 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.

    44. In Sec. 284.221, paragraph (d)(1) is amended to remove the 
``s'' from the word ``paragraphs'' and to remove the phrase ``and 
(d)(3)''; paragraph (d)(3) is removed; the word ``replacement,'' is 
added to paragraph (f)(3) after the word ``operation''; paragraph 
(f)(4) is revised; and the phrase ``and Sec. 157.212'' is removed from 
paragraph (h)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 284.221  General rule; transportation by interstate pipeline on 
behalf of others.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) Authorization for delivery points is subject to the automatic 
authorization under Sec. 157.211(a)(1) and the prior notice procedures 
under Sec. 157.211(a)(2) and Sec. 157.205.
* * * * *
    45. Section 284.262 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 284.262  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart:
    Emergency means:
    (1) Any situation in which an actual or expected shortage of gas 
supply or capacity would require an interstate pipeline company, 
intrastate pipeline, local distribution company, or Hinshaw pipeline to 
curtail deliveries of gas or provide less than the projected level of 
service to any pipeline customer, including any situation in which 
additional supplies or capacity are necessary to ensure a pipeline's 
contracted level of service to any customer, but not including any 
situation in which additional supplies or capacity are needed to 
increase the contracted level of service to an existing

[[Page 26611]]

customer or to provide service to a new customer; or
    (2) A sudden unanticipated loss of natural gas supply or capacity; 
or
    (3) An anticipated loss of natural gas supply or capacity due to a 
foreseeable facility outage resulting from a landslide or riverbed 
erosion or other natural forces beyond the participant's control. 
Participants may seek a temporary certificate under Secs. 157.17 of 
this chapter if the facilities to remedy the emergency cannot be 
constructed automatically under Sec. 2.55(b) or Sec. 157.208(a) of this 
chapter.
    (4) A situation in which the participant, in good faith, determines 
that immediate action is required or is reasonably anticipated to be 
required for protection of life or health or for maintenance of 
physical property.
    Emergency does not mean any situation resulting from a failure by 
any person to transport natural gas under subpart B, C, or G of this 
part.
    Projected level of service means the level of gas volumes to be 
delivered by the company for each customer and additional gas volumes 
needed by a customer due solely to a weather-induced increase in 
requirements.
    Emergency natural gas means natural gas sold, transported, or 
exchanged in an emergency natural gas transaction.
    Emergency natural gas transaction means the sale, transportation, 
or exchange of natural gas (including the construction and operation of 
necessary facilities) conducted pursuant to this subpart, that is:
    (1) Necessary to alleviate an emergency; and
    (2) Not anticipated to extend for more than 60 days in duration.
    Emergency facilities means any facilities necessary to alleviate 
the emergency within the time frame established in Sec. 284.264(b). 
Participants can seek permanent authority to operate the emergency 
facilities either under the temporary certificate provisions of 
Sec. 157.17 of this chapter or the prior notice provisions of 
Sec. 157.208(b) of this chapter.
    Participant means any first seller, interstate pipeline, intrastate 
pipeline, local distribution company or Hinshaw pipeline that 
participates in an emergency natural gas transaction under this 
subpart.
    Recipient means:
    (1) In the case of a sale of emergency natural gas, the purchaser 
of such gas; or
    (2) In the case of a transportation or exchange of natural gas when 
there is no sale of emergency natural gas under this subpart, the 
participant who receives the gas.
    Hinshaw pipeline means a pipeline that is exempt from the Natural 
Gas Act jurisdiction of the Commission by reason of section 1(c) of the 
Natural Gas Act.


Sec. 284.288  [Removed]

    46. Section 284.288 is removed and reserved.

PART 375--THE COMMISSION

    47. The authority citation for Part 375 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 
U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

    48. In Sec. 375.307, paragraph (a)(1) is revised; paragraph (a)(2) 
is removed; paragraphs (a)(3)-(5) are redesignated as paragraphs 
(a)(2)-(4) and are revised; paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) are 
redesignated as (a)(5) and (6); paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9) are 
removed; paragraph (a)(10)-(12) are redesignated as (a)(7)-(9); new 
paragraph (a)(10) is added; paragraphs (a)(14)-(16) are redesignated as 
(a)(11)-(13), and paragraphs(a)(17) and (a)(18) are removed; paragraphs 
(b)(4) and (5) and (c) are removed; paragraph (d) is redesignated as 
(c); paragraphs (e)(3) and (7) are removed; paragraphs (e)(4)-(6) are 
redesignated as (e)(3)-(5); paragraphs (e)-(g) are redesignated as (d)-
(f); and redesignated paragraph (e)(3) is revised all to read as 
follows:


Sec. 375.307  Delegations to the Director of the Office of Pipeline 
Regulation.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Applications or amendments requesting authorization for the 
construction or acquisition and operation of facilities that have a 
construction or acquisition cost less than the limits specified in 
Column 2 of Table I in Sec. 157.208(d) of this chapter;
    (2) Applications by a pipeline for the abandonment of pipeline 
facilities or for the deletion of delivery points;
    (3) Applications to abandon pipeline facilities or services 
involving a specific customer or customers, if such customer or 
customers have agreed to the abandonment;
    (4) Applications for temporary or permanent certificates (and for 
amendments thereto) for the transportation, exchange, or storage of 
natural gas, provided that the cost of construction of the certificate 
applicant's related facility is less than the limits specified in 
Column 2 of Table I in Sec. 157.208(d) of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (10) Dismiss any protest to prior notice filings made pursuant to 
Sec. 157.205 of this chapter that does not raise a substantive issue 
and fails to provide any specific detailed reason or rationale for the 
objection;
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Fees prescribed in Secs. 381.207 and 381.403 of this chapter in 
accordance with Secs. 381.106(b) of this chapter;

PART 380-REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 
ACT

    49. The authority citation for Part 380 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 
4321-4370a; Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7101-
7352; E.O. 12009, 3 CFR 1978 Comp., p. 142.


Sec. 380.3  [Amended]

    50. Section 380.3(c)(2) is amended to add the words ``Sec. 380.12 
and'' after the words ``information identified in''.


Sec. 380.4  [Amended]

    51. In Sec. 380.4(a)(28) remove the word ``tops'' and add the word 
``taps'' in its place.
    52. New Sec. 380.12, is added to read as follows:


Sec. 380.12  Environmental Reports for Natural Gas Act Applications.

    (a) Introduction. (1) The applicant must submit an environmental 
report with any application that proposes the construction, operation, 
or abandonment of any facility identified in Sec. 380.3(c)(2)(i). The 
environmental report shall consist of the thirteen resource reports and 
related material described in this section.
    (2) The detail of each resource report must be commensurate with 
the complexity of the proposal and its potential for environmental 
impact. Each topic in each resource report shall be addressed or its 
omission justified, unless the resource report description indicates 
that the data is not required for that type of proposal. If material 
required for one resource report is provided in another resource report 
or in another exhibit, it may be incorporated by reference. If any 
resource report topic is required for a particular project but is not 
provided at the time the application is filed, the environmental report 
shall explain why it is missing and when the applicant anticipates it 
will be filed.
    (3) The appendix to this part contains a checklist of the minimum 
filing requirements for an environmental report. Failure to provide at 
least the applicable checklist items will result in rejection of the 
application unless the

[[Page 26612]]

Director of OPR determines that the applicant has provided an 
acceptable reason for the item's absence and an acceptable schedule for 
filing it. Failure to file within the accepted schedule will result in 
rejection of the application.
    (b) General requirements. As appropriate, each resource report 
shall:
    (1) Address conditions or resources that might be directly or 
indirectly affected by the project.
    (2) Identify significant environmental effects expected to occur as 
a result of the project;
    (3) Identify the effects of construction, operation (including 
maintenance and malfunctions), and termination of the project, as well 
as cumulative effects resulting from existing or reasonably foreseeable 
projects;
    (4) Identify measures proposed to enhance the environment or to 
avoid, mitigate, or compensate for adverse effects of the project;
    (5) Provide a list of publications, reports, and other literature 
or communications, including agency contacts, that were cited or relied 
upon to prepare each report. This list should include the name and 
title of the person contacted, their affiliations, and telephone 
number.
    (6) Whenever this section refers to ``mileposts'' the applicant may 
substitute ``survey centerline stationing'' if so desired. However, 
whatever method is chosen should be used consistently throughout the 
resource reports.
    (c) Resource Report 1--General project description. This report is 
required for all applications. It will describe facilities associated 
with the project, special construction and operation procedures, 
construction timetables, future plans for related construction, 
compliance with regulations and codes, and permits that must be 
obtained. Resource Report 1 must:
    (1) Describe and provide location maps of all jurisdictional 
facilities, including all aboveground facilities associated with the 
project (such as: meter stations, pig launchers/receivers, valves), to 
be constructed, modified, abandoned, replaced, or removed, including 
related construction and operational support activities and areas such 
as maintenance bases, staging areas, communications towers, power 
lines, and new access roads (roads to be built or modified). As 
relevant, the report must describe the length and diameter of the 
pipeline, the types of aboveground facilities that would be installed, 
and associated land requirements. It must also identify other companies 
that must construct jurisdictional facilities related to the project, 
where the facilities would be located, and where they are in the 
Commission's approval process.
    (2) Identify and describe all nonjurisdictional facilities, 
including auxiliary facilities, that will be built in association with 
the project, including facilities to be built by other companies.
    (i) Provide the following information:
    (A) A brief description of each facility, including as appropriate: 
Ownership, land requirements, gas consumption, megawatt size, 
construction status, and an update of the latest status of Federal, 
state, and local permits/approvals;
    (B) The length and diameter of any interconnecting pipeline;
    (C) Current 1:24,000/1:25,000 scale topographic maps showing the 
location of the facilities;
    (D) Correspondence with the appropriate State Historic Preservation 
Officer (SHPO) or duly authorized Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 
(THPO) for tribal lands regarding whether properties eligible for 
listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would be 
affected;
    (E) Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (and 
National Marine Fisheries Service, if appropriate) regarding potential 
impacts of the proposed facility on federally listed threatened and 
endangered species; and
    (F) For facilities within a designated coastal zone management 
area, a consistency determination or evidence that the owner has 
requested a consistency determination from the state's coastal zone 
management program.
    (ii) Address each of the following factors and indicate which ones, 
if any, appear to indicate the need for the Commission to do an 
environmental review of project-related nonjurisdictional facilities.
    (A) Whether or not the regulated activity comprises ``merely a 
link'' in a corridor type project (e.g., a transportation or utility 
transmission project).
    (B) Whether there are aspects of the nonjurisdictional facility in 
the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity which uniquely 
determine the location and configuration of the regulated activity.
    (C) The extent to which the entire project will be within the 
Commission's jurisdiction.
    (D) The extent of cumulative Federal control and responsibility.
    (3) Provide the following maps and photos:
    (i) Current, original United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-
minute series topographic maps or maps of equivalent detail, covering 
at least a 0.5-mile-wide corridor centered on the pipeline, with 
integer mileposts identified, showing the location of rights-of-way, 
new access roads, other linear construction areas, compressor stations, 
and pipe storage areas. Show nonlinear construction areas on maps at a 
scale of 1:3,600 or larger keyed graphically and by milepost to the 
right-of-way maps.
    (ii) Original aerial images or photographs or photo-based alignment 
sheets based on these sources, not more than 1 year old (unless older 
ones accurately depict current land use and development) and with a 
scale of 1:6,000 or larger, showing the proposed pipeline route and 
location of major aboveground facilities, covering at least a 0.5 mile-
wide corridor, and including mileposts. Older images/photographs/
alignment sheets should be modified to show any residences not depicted 
in the original. Alternative formats (e.g., blue-line prints of 
acceptable resolution) need prior approval by the environmental staff 
of the Office of Pipeline Regulation.
    (iii) In addition to the copy required under Sec. 157.6(a)(2) of 
this chapter, applicant should send two additional copies of 
topographic maps and aerial images/photographs directly to the 
environmental staff of the Office of Pipeline Regulation.
    (4) When new or additional compression is proposed, include large 
scale (1:3,600 or greater) plot plans of each compressor station. The 
plot plan should reference a readily identifiable point(s) on the USGS 
maps required in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The maps and plot 
plans must identify the location of the nearest noise-sensitive areas 
(schools, hospitals, or residences) within 1 mile of the compressor 
station, existing and proposed compressor and auxiliary buildings, 
access roads, and the limits of areas that would be permanently 
disturbed.
    (5) Identify aboveground facilities to be abandoned, how they would 
be abandoned, and how the site would be restored.
    (6) Describe and identify by milepost, proposed construction and 
restoration methods to be used in areas of rugged topography, 
residential areas, active croplands, sites where the pipeline would be 
located parallel to and under roads, and sites where explosives are 
likely to be used.
    (7) Unless provided in response to Resource Report 5, describe 
estimated workforce requirements, including the number of pipeline 
construction spreads, average workforce

[[Page 26613]]

requirements for each construction spread and meter or compressor 
station, estimated duration of construction from initial clearing to 
final restoration, and number of personnel to be hired to operate the 
proposed project.
    (8) Describe reasonably foreseeable plans for future expansion of 
facilities, including additional land requirements and the 
compatibility of those plans with the current proposal.
    (9) Describe all authorizations required to complete the proposed 
action and the status of applications for such authorizations. Identify 
environmental mitigation requirements specified in any permit or 
proposed in any permit application to the extent not specified 
elsewhere in this section.
    (10) Provide the names and addresses of all landowners whose land 
would be crossed by the project facilities. Include the names and 
addresses of all residents adjacent to new or modified compressor 
stations.
    (d) Resource Report 2--Water use and quality. This report is 
required for all applications, except those which involve only 
facilities within the areas of an existing compressor, meter, or 
regulator station that were disturbed by construction of the existing 
facilities, no wetlands or waterbodies are on the site and there would 
not be a significant increase in water use. The report must describe 
water quality and provide data sufficient to determine the expected 
impact of the project and the effectiveness of mitigative, enhancement, 
or protective measures. Resource Report 2 must:
    (1) Identify and describe by milepost perennial waterbodies and 
municipal water supply or watershed areas, specially designated surface 
water protection areas and sensitive waterbodies, and wetlands that 
would be crossed. For each waterbody crossing, identify the approximate 
width, state water quality classifications, any known potential 
pollutants present in the water or sediments, and any potable water 
intake sources within 3 miles downstream.
    (2) Compare proposed mitigation measures with the staff's current 
``Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures,'' which 
are available from the Commission Internet home page or the Commission 
staff, describe what proposed alternative mitigation would provide 
equivalent or greater protection to the environment, and provide a 
description of site- specific construction techniques that would be 
used at each major waterbody crossing.
    (3) Describe typical staging area requirements at waterbody and 
wetland crossings. Also, identify and describe waterbodies and wetlands 
where staging areas are likely to be more extensive.
    (4) Include National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. If NWI maps are 
not available, provide the appropriate state wetland maps. Identify for 
each crossing, the milepost, the wetland classification specified by 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the length of the crossing. 
Include two copies of the NWI maps (or the substitutes, if NWI maps are 
not available) clearly showing the proposed route and mileposts 
directed to the environmental staff. Describe by milepost, wetland 
crossings as determined by field delineations using the current Federal 
methodology.
    (5) Identify aquifers within excavation depth in the project area, 
including the depth of the aquifer, current and projected use, water 
quality and average yield, and known or suspected contamination 
problems.
    (6) Describe specific locations, the quantity required, and the 
method and rate of withdrawal and discharge of hydrostatic test water. 
Describe suspended or dissolved material likely to be present in the 
water as a result of contact with the pipeline, particularly if an 
existing pipeline is being retested. Describe chemical or physical 
treatment of the pipeline or hydrostatic test water. Discuss waste 
products generated and disposal methods.
    (7) If underground storage of natural gas is proposed:
    (i) Identify how water produced from the storage field will be 
disposed of, and
    (ii) For salt caverns, identify the source locations, the quantity 
required, and the method and rate of withdrawal of water for creating 
salt cavern(s), as well as the means of disposal of brine resulting 
from cavern leaching.
    (8) Discuss proposed mitigation measures to reduce the potential 
for adverse impacts to surface water, wetlands, or groundwater quality 
to the extent they are not described in response to paragraph (d)(2) of 
this section. Discuss the potential for blasting to affect water wells, 
springs, and wetlands, and measures to be taken to detect and remedy 
such effects.
    (9) Identify the location of known public and private groundwater 
supply wells or springs within 150 feet of proposed construction areas. 
Identify locations of EPA or state-designated sole-source aquifers and 
wellhead protection areas crossed by the proposed pipeline facilities.
    (e) Resource Report 3--Fish, wildlife, and vegetation. This report 
is required for all applications, except those involving only 
facilities within the improved area of an existing compressor, meter, 
or regulator station. It must describe aquatic life, wildlife, and 
vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed project; expected impacts on 
these resources including potential effects on biodiversity; and 
proposed mitigation, enhancement or protection measures. Resource 
Report 3 must:
    (1) Describe commercial and recreational warmwater, coldwater, and 
saltwater fisheries in the affected area and associated significant 
habitats such as spawning or rearing areas and estuaries.
    (2) Describe terrestrial habitats, including wetlands, typical 
wildlife habitats, and rare, unique, or otherwise significant habitats 
that might be affected by the proposed action. Describe typical species 
that have commercial, recreational, or aesthetic value.
    (3) Describe and provide the affected acreage of vegetation cover 
types that would be affected, including unique ecosystems or 
communities such as remnant prairie or old-growth forest, or 
significant individual plants, such as old-growth specimen trees.
    (4) Describe the impact of construction and operation on aquatic 
and terrestrial species and their habitats, including the possibility 
of a major alteration to ecosystems or biodiversity, and any potential 
impact on state-listed endangered or threatened species. Describe the 
impact of maintenance, clearing and treatment of the project area on 
fish, wildlife, and vegetation. Surveys may be required to determine 
specific areas of significant habitats or communities of species of 
special concern to state or local agencies.
    (5) Identify all federally listed or proposed endangered or 
threatened species and critical habitat that potentially occur in the 
vicinity of the project. Discuss the results of the consultation 
requirements listed in Sec. 380.13(b) at least through 
Sec. 380.13(b)(5)(i) and include any written correspondence that 
resulted from the consultation. The initial application must include 
the results of any required surveys unless seasonal considerations make 
this impractical. If species surveys are impractical, there must be 
field surveys to determine the presence of suitable habitat unless the 
entire project area is suitable habitat.
    (6) Describe site-specific mitigation measures to minimize impacts 
on fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation.
    (7) Include copies of correspondence not provided pursuant to 
paragraph (e)(5) of this section, containing recommendations from 
appropriate Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies to avoid or 
limit impact on

[[Page 26614]]

wildlife, fisheries, and vegetation, and the applicant's response to 
the recommendations.
    (f) Resource Report 4--Cultural resources. This report is required 
for all applications. In order to prepare this report, the applicant 
must follow the principles in Sec. 380.14 of this part. Guidance on the 
content and the format for the documentation listed below, as well as 
professional qualifications of preparers, is detailed in ``OPR's 
Guidelines for Reporting on Cultural Resources Investigations,'' which 
is available from the Commission Internet home page or from the 
Commission staff.
    (1) Resource Report 4 must contain:
     (i) Documentation of the applicant's initial cultural resources 
consultation, including consultations with Native Americans and other 
interested persons (if appropriate);
    (ii) Overview and Survey Reports, as appropriate;
    (iii) Evaluation Report, as appropriate;
    (iv) Treatment Plan, as appropriate; and
    (v) Written comments from State Historic Preservation Officer(s) 
(SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO), as appropriate, 
and applicable land-managing agencies on the reports in paragraphs 
(f)(1)(i)-(iv) of this section.
    (2) The initial application must include the Documentation of 
initial cultural resource consultation, the Overview and Survey 
Reports, if required, and written comments from SHPOs, THPOs and land-
managing agencies, if available. The initial cultural resources 
consultations should establish the need for surveys. If deemed 
necessary, the survey report must be filed with the application.
    (i) If the comments of the SHPOs, THPOs, or land-management 
agencies are not available at the time the application is filed, they 
may be filed separately, but they must be filed before a final 
certificate is issued.
    (ii) If landowners deny access to private property and certain 
areas are not surveyed, the unsurveyed area must be identified by 
mileposts, and supplemental surveys or evaluations shall be conducted 
after access is granted. In such circumstances, reports, and treatment 
plans, if necessary, for those inaccessible lands may be filed after a 
certificate is issued.
    (3) The Evaluation Report and Treatment Plan, if required, for the 
entire project must be filed before a final certificate is issued.
    (i) The Evaluation Report may be combined in a single synthetic 
report with the Overview and Survey Reports if the SHPOs, THPOs, and 
land-management agencies allow and if it is available at the time the 
application is filed.
    (ii) In preparing the Treatment Plan, the applicant must consult 
with the Commission staff, the SHPO, and any applicable THPO and land-
management agencies.
    (iii) Authorization to implement the Treatment Plan will occur only 
after the final certificate is issued.
    (4) Applicant must request privileged treatment for all material 
filed with the Commission containing location, character, and ownership 
information about cultural resources in accordance with Sec. 388.112 of 
this chapter. The cover and relevant pages or portions of the report 
should be clearly labeled in bold lettering: ``CONTAINS PRIVILEGED 
INFORMATION--DO NOT RELEASE.''
    (5) Except as specified in a final Commission order, or by the 
Director of the Office of Pipeline Regulation, construction may not 
begin until all cultural resource reports and plans have been approved.
    (g) Resource Report 5--Socioeconomics. This report is required only 
for applications involving significant aboveground facilities, 
including, among others, conditioning or liquefied natural gas (LNG) 
plants. It must identify and quantify the impacts of constructing and 
operating the proposed project on factors affecting towns and counties 
in the vicinity of the project. Resource Report 5 must:
    (1) Describe the socioeconomic impact area.
    (2) Evaluate the impact of any substantial immigration of people on 
governmental facilities and services and plans to reduce the impact on 
the local infrastructure.
    (3) Describe on-site manpower requirements and payroll during 
construction and operation, including the number of construction 
personnel who currently reside within the impact area, would commute 
daily to the site from outside the impact area, or would relocate 
temporarily within the impact area.
    (4) Determine whether existing housing within the impact area is 
sufficient to meet the needs of the additional population.
    (5) Describe the number and types of residences and businesses that 
would be displaced by the project, procedures to be used to acquire 
these properties, and types and amounts of relocation assistance 
payments.
    (6) Conduct a fiscal impact analysis evaluating incremental local 
government expenditures in relation to incremental local government 
revenues that would result from construction of the project. 
Incremental expenditures include, but are not limited to, school 
operating costs, road maintenance and repair, public safety, and public 
utility costs.
    (h) Resource Report 6--Geological resources. This report is 
required for applications involving LNG facilities and all other 
applications, except those involving only facilities within the 
boundaries of existing aboveground facilities, such as a compressor, 
meter, or regulator station. It must describe geological resources and 
hazards in the project area that might be directly or indirectly 
affected by the proposed action or that could place the proposed 
facilities at risk, the potential effects of those hazards on the 
facility, and methods proposed to reduce the effects or risks. Resource 
Report 6 must:
    (1) Describe, by milepost, mineral resources that are currently or 
potentially exploitable;
    (2) Describe, by milepost, existing and potential geological 
hazards and areas of nonroutine geotechnical concern, such as high 
seismicity areas, active faults, and areas susceptible to soil 
liquefaction; planned, active, and abandoned mines; karst terrain; and 
areas of potential ground failure, such as subsidence, slumping, and 
landsliding. Discuss the hazards posed to the facility from each one.
    (3) Describe how the project would be located or designed to avoid 
or minimize adverse effects to the resources or risk to itself, 
including geotechnical investigations and monitoring that would be 
conducted before, during, and after construction. Discuss also the 
potential for blasting to affect structures, and the measures to be 
taken to remedy such effects.
    (4) Specify methods to be used to prevent project-induced 
contamination from surface mines or from mine tailings along the right-
of-way and whether the project would hinder mine reclamation or 
expansion efforts.
    (5) If the application involves an LNG facility located in zones 2, 
3, or 4 of the Uniform Building Code's Seismic Risk Map, or where there 
is potential for surface faulting or liquefaction, prepare a report on 
earthquake hazards and engineering in conformance with ``Data 
Requirements for the Seismic Review of LNG Facilities,'' NBSIR 84-2833. 
This document may be obtained from the Commission staff.
    (6) If the application is for underground storage facilities:
    (i) Describe how the applicant would control and monitor the 
drilling activity

[[Page 26615]]

of others within the field and buffer zone;
    (ii) Describe how the applicant would monitor potential effects of 
the operation of adjacent storage or production facilities on the 
proposed facility, and vice versa;
    (iii) Describe measures taken to locate and determine the condition 
of old wells within the field and buffer zone and how the applicant 
would reduce risk from failure of known and undiscovered wells; and
    (iv) Identify and discuss safety and environmental safeguards 
required by state and Federal drilling regulations.
    (i) Resource Report 7--Soils. This report is required for all 
applications except those not involving soil disturbance. It must 
describe the soils that would be affected by the proposed project, the 
effect on those soils, and measures proposed to minimize or avoid 
impact. Resource Report 7 must:
    (1) List, by milepost, the soil associations that would be crossed 
and describe the erosion potential, fertility, and drainage 
characteristics of each association.
    (2) If an aboveground facility site is greater than 5 acres:
    (i) List the soil series within the property and the percentage of 
the property comprised of each series;
    (ii) List the percentage of each series which would be permanently 
disturbed;
    (iii) Describe the characteristics of each soil series; and
    (iv) Indicate which are classified as prime or unique farmland by 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.
    (3) Identify, by milepost, potential impact from: Soil erosion due 
to water, wind, or loss of vegetation; soil compaction and damage to 
soil structure resulting from movement of construction vehicles; wet 
soils and soils with poor drainage that are especially prone to 
structural damage; damage to drainage tile systems due to movement of 
construction vehicles and trenching activities; and interference with 
the operation of agricultural equipment due to the probability of large 
stones or blasted rock occurring on or near the surface as a result of 
construction.
    (4) Identify, by milepost, cropland and residential areas where 
loss of soil fertility due to trenching and backfilling could occur.
    (5) Describe proposed mitigation measures to reduce the potential 
for adverse impact to soils or agricultural productivity. Compare 
proposed mitigation measures with the staff's current ``Upland Erosion 
Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan'', which is available from 
the Commission Internet home page or from the Commission staff, and 
explain how proposed mitigation measures provide equivalent or greater 
protections to the environment.
    (j) Resource Report 8-- Land use, recreation and aesthetics. This 
report is required for all applications except those involving only 
facilities which are of comparable use at existing compressor, meter, 
and regulator stations. It must describe the existing uses of land on, 
and (where specified) within 0.25 mile of, the proposed project and 
changes to those land uses that would occur if the project is approved. 
The report shall discuss proposed mitigation measures, including 
protection and enhancement of existing land use. Resource Report 8 
must:
    (1) Describe the width and acreage requirements of all construction 
and permanent rights-of-way and the acreage required for each proposed 
plant and operational site, including injection or withdrawal wells.
    (i) List, by milepost, locations where the proposed right-of-way 
would be adjacent to existing rights-of-way of any kind.
    (ii) Identify, preferably by diagrams, existing rights-of-way that 
would be used for a portion of the construction or operational right-
of-way, the overlap and how much additional width would be required.
    (iii) Identify the total amount of land to be purchased or leased 
for each aboveground facility, the amount of land that would be 
disturbed for construction and operation of the facility, and the use 
of the remaining land not required for project operation.
    (iv) Identify the size of typical staging areas and expanded work 
areas, such as those at railroad, road, and waterbody crossings, and 
the size and location of all pipe storage yards and access roads.
    (2) Identify, by milepost, the existing use of lands crossed by the 
proposed pipeline, or on or adjacent to each proposed plant and 
operational site.
    (3) Describe planned development on land crossed or within 0.25 
mile of proposed facilities, the time frame (if available) for such 
development, and proposed coordination to minimize impacts on land use. 
Planned development means development which is included in a master 
plan or is on file with the local planning board or the county.
    (4) Identify, by milepost and length of crossing, the area of 
direct effect of each proposed facility and operational site on sugar 
maple stands, orchards and nurseries, landfills, operating mines, 
hazardous waste sites, state wild and scenic rivers, state or local 
designated trails, nature preserves, game management areas, remnant 
prairie, old-growth forest, national or state forests, parks, golf 
courses, designated natural, recreational or scenic areas, or 
registered natural landmarks, Native American religious sites and 
traditional cultural properties to the extent they are known to the 
public at large, and reservations, lands identified under the Special 
Area Management Plan of the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and lands owned or controlled 
by Federal or state agencies or private preservation groups. Also 
identify if any of those areas are located within 0.25 mile of any 
proposed facility.
    (5) Identify, by milepost, all residences and buildings within 50 
feet of the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way and the 
distance of the residence or building from the right-of- way. Provide 
survey drawings or alignment sheets to illustrate the location of the 
facilities in relation to the buildings.
    (6) Describe any areas crossed by or within 0.25 mile of the 
proposed pipeline or plant and operational sites which are included in, 
or are designated for study for inclusion in: The National Wild and 
Scenic Rivers System (16 U.S.C. 1271); The National Trails System (16 
U.S.C. 1241); or a wilderness area designated under the Wilderness Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1132).
    (7) For facilities within a designated coastal zone management 
area, provide a consistency determination or evidence that the 
applicant has requested a consistency determination from the state's 
coastal zone management program.
    (8) Describe the impact the project will have on present uses of 
the affected area as identified above, including commercial uses, 
mineral resources, recreational areas, public health and safety, and 
the aesthetic value of the land and its features. Describe any 
temporary or permanent restrictions on land use resulting from the 
project.
    (9) Describe mitigation measures intended for all special use areas 
identified under paragraphs (j)(2) through (6) of this section.
    (10) Describe proposed typical mitigation measures for each 
residence that is within 50 feet of the edge of the pipeline 
construction right-of-way, as well as any proposed residence-specific 
mitigation. Describe how residential property, including for example, 
fences, driveways, stone walls, sidewalks, water supply, and septic 
systems, would be

[[Page 26616]]

restored. Describe compensation plans for temporary and permanent 
rights-of-way and the eminent domain process for the affected areas.
    (11) Describe measures proposed to mitigate the aesthetic impact of 
the facilities especially for aboveground facilities such as compressor 
or meter stations.
    (12) Demonstrate that applications for rights-of-way or other 
proposed land use have been or soon will be filed with Federal land-
management agencies with jurisdiction over land that would be affected 
by the project.
    (k) Resource Report 9--Air and noise quality. This report is 
required for applications involving compressor facilities at new or 
existing stations, and for all new LNG facilities. It must identify the 
effects of the project on the existing air quality and noise 
environment and describe proposed measures to mitigate the effects. 
Resource Report 9 must:
    (1) Describe the existing air quality, including background levels 
of nitrogen dioxide and other criteria pollutants which may be emitted 
above EPA-identified significance levels.
    (2) Quantitatively describe existing noise levels at noise-
sensitive areas, such as schools, hospitals, or residences and include 
any areas covered by relevant state or local noise ordinances.
    (i) Report existing noise levels as the Leq (day), 
Leq (night), and Ldn and include the basis for 
the data or estimates.
    (ii) For existing compressor stations, include the results of a 
sound level survey at the site property line and nearby noise-sensitive 
areas while the compressors are operated at full load.
    (iii) For proposed new compressor station sites, measure or 
estimate the existing ambient sound environment based on current land 
uses and activities.
    (iv) Include a plot plan that identifies the locations and duration 
of noise measurements, the time of day, weather conditions, wind speed 
and direction, engine load, and other noise sources present during each 
measurement.
    (3) Estimate the impact of the project on air quality, including 
how existing regulatory standards would be met.
    (i) Provide the emission rate of nitrogen oxides from existing and 
proposed facilities, expressed in pounds per hour and tons per year for 
maximum operating conditions, include supporting calculations, emission 
factors, fuel consumption rates, and annual hours of operation.
    (ii) For major sources of air emissions (as defined by the 
Environmental Protection Agency), provide copies of applications for 
permits to construct (and operate, if applicable) or for applicability 
determinations under regulations for the prevention of significant air 
quality deterioration and subsequent determinations.
    (4) Provide a quantitative estimate of the impact of the project on 
noise levels at noise-sensitive areas, such as schools, hospitals, or 
residences.
    (i) Include step-by-step supporting calculations or identify the 
computer program used to model the noise levels, the input and raw 
output data and all assumptions made when running the model, far-field 
sound level data for maximum facility operation, and the source of the 
data.
    (ii) Include sound pressure levels for unmuffled engine inlets and 
exhausts, engine casings, and cooling equipment; dynamic insertion loss 
for all mufflers; sound transmission loss for all compressor building 
components, including walls, roof, doors, windows, and ventilation 
openings; sound attenuation from the station to nearby noise-sensitive 
areas; the manufacturer's name, the model number, the performance 
rating; and a description of each noise source and noise control 
component to be employed at the proposed compressor station.
    (iii) Far-field sound level data measured from similar units in 
service elsewhere, when available, may be substituted for 
manufacturer's far-field sound level data.
    (iv) If specific noise control equipment has not been chosen, 
include a schedule for submitting the data prior to certification.
    (v) The estimate must demonstrate that the project will comply with 
applicable noise regulations and show how the facility will meet the 
following requirements:
    (A) The noise attributable to any new compressor station, 
compression added to an existing station, or any modification, upgrade 
or update of an existing station, must not exceed a day- night sound 
level (Ldn) of 55 dBA at any pre-existing noise-sensitive 
area (such as schools, hospitals, or residences).
    (B) New compressor stations or modifications of existing stations 
shall not result in a perceptible increase in vibration at any noise-
sensitive area.
    (5) Describe measures and manufacturer's specifications for 
equipment proposed to mitigate impact to air and noise quality, 
including emission control systems, installation of filters, mufflers, 
or insulation of piping and buildings, and orientation of equipment 
away from noise-sensitive areas.
    (l) Resource Report 10--Alternatives. This report is required for 
all applications. It must describe alternatives to the project and 
compare the environmental impacts of such alternatives to those of the 
proposal. The discussion must demonstrate how environmental benefits 
and costs were weighed against economic benefits and costs, and 
technological and procedural constraints. The potential for each 
alternative to meet project deadlines and the environmental 
consequences of each alternative shall be discussed. Resource Report 10 
must:
    (1) Discuss the ``no action'' alternative and the potential for 
accomplishing the proposed objectives through the use of other systems 
and/or energy conservation. Provide an analysis of the relative 
environmental benefits and costs for each alternative.
    (2) Describe alternative routes or locations considered for each 
facility during the initial screening for the project.
    (i) For alternative routes considered in the initial screening for 
the project but eliminated, describe the environmental characteristics 
of each route or site, and the reasons for rejecting it. Identify the 
location of such alternatives on maps of sufficient scale to depict 
their location and relationship to the proposed action, and the 
relationship of the pipeline to existing rights-of-way.
    (ii) For alternative routes or locations considered for more in-
depth consideration, describe the environmental characteristics of each 
route or site and the reasons for rejecting it. Provide comparative 
tables showing the differences in environmental characteristics for the 
alternative and proposed action. The location of any alternatives in 
this paragraph shall be provided on maps equivalent to those required 
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (m) Resource Report 11--Reliability and safety. This report is 
required for applications involving new or recommissioned LNG 
facilities. Information previously filed with the Commission need not 
be refiled if the applicant verifies its continued validity. This 
report shall address the potential hazard to the public from failure of 
facility components resulting from accidents or natural catastrophes, 
how these events would affect reliability, and what procedures and 
design features have been used to reduce potential hazards. Resource 
Report 11 must:
    (1) Describe measures proposed to protect the public from failure 
of the proposed facilities (including coordination with local 
agencies).
    (2) Discuss hazards, the environmental impact, and service 
interruptions which could reasonably

[[Page 26617]]

ensue from failure of the proposed facilities.
    (3) Discuss design and operational measures to avoid or reduce 
risk.
    (4) Discuss contingency plans for maintaining service or reducing 
downtime.
    (5) Describe measures used to exclude the public from hazardous 
areas. Discuss measures used to minimize problems arising from 
malfunctions and accidents (with estimates of probability of 
occurrence) and identify standard procedures for protecting services 
and public safety during maintenance and breakdowns.
    (n) Resource Report 12--PCB Contamination. This report is required 
for applications involving the replacement, abandonment by removal, or 
abandonment in place of pipeline facilities determined to have 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in excess of 50 ppm in pipeline 
liquids. Resource Report 12 must:
    (1) Provide a statement that activities would comply with an 
approved EPA disposal permit, with the dates of issuance and expiration 
specified, or with the requirements of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act.
    (2) For compressor station modifications on sites that have been 
determined to have soils contaminated with PCBs, describe the status of 
remediation efforts completed to date.
    (o) Resource Report 13--Engineering and design material. This 
report is required for construction of new liquefied natural gas (LNG) 
facilities, or the recommissioning of existing LNG facilities. If the 
recommissioned facility is existing and is not being replaced, 
relocated, or significantly altered, resubmittal of information already 
on file with the Commission is unnecessary. Resource Report 13 must:
    (1) Provide a detailed plot plan showing the location of all major 
components to be installed, including compression, pretreatment, 
liquefaction, storage, transfer piping, vaporization, truck loading/
unloading, vent stacks, pumps, and auxiliary or appurtenant service 
facilities.
    (2) Provide a detailed layout of the fire protection system showing 
the location of fire water pumps, piping, hydrants, hose reels, dry 
chemical systems, high expansion foam systems, and auxiliary or 
appurtenant service facilities.
    (3) Provide a layout of the hazard detection system showing the 
location of combustible-gas detectors, fire detectors, heat detectors, 
smoke or combustion product detectors, and low temperature detectors. 
Identify those detectors that activate automatic shutdowns and the 
equipment that would shut down. Include all safety provisions 
incorporated in the plant design, including automatic and manually 
activated emergency shutdown systems.
    (4) Provide a detailed layout of the spill containment system 
showing the location of impoundments, sumps, subdikes, channels, and 
water removal systems.
    (5) Provide manufacturer's specifications, drawings, and literature 
on the fail-safe shut-off valve for each loading area at a marine 
terminal (if applicable).
    (6) Provide a detailed layout of the fuel gas system showing all 
taps with process components.
    (7) Provide copies of company, engineering firm, or consultant 
studies of a conceptual nature that show the engineering planning or 
design approach to the construction of new facilities or plants.
    (8) Provide engineering information on major process components 
related to the first six items above, which include (as applicable) 
function, capacity, type, manufacturer, drive system (horsepower, 
voltage), operating pressure, and temperature.
    (9) Provide manuals and construction drawings for LNG storage 
tank(s).
    (10) Provide up-to-date piping and instrumentation diagrams. 
Include a description of the instrumentation and control philosophy, 
type of instrumentation (pneumatic, electronic), use of computer 
technology, and control room display and operation. Also, provide an 
overall schematic diagram of the entire process flow system, including 
maps, materials, and energy balances.
    (11) Provide engineering information on the plant's electrical 
power generation system, distribution system, emergency power system, 
uninterruptible power system, and battery backup system.
    (12) Identify of all codes and standards under which the plant (and 
marine terminal, if applicable) will be designed, and any special 
considerations or safety provisions that were applied to the design of 
plant components.
    (13) Provide a list of all permits or approvals from local, state, 
Federal, or Native American groups or Indian agencies required prior to 
and during construction of the plant, and the status of each, including 
the date filed, the date issued, and any known obstacles to approval. 
Include a description of data records required for submission to such 
agencies and transcripts of any public hearings by such agencies. Also 
provide copies of any correspondence relating to the actions by all, or 
any, of these agencies regarding all required approvals.
    (14) Identify how each applicable requirement will comply with 49 
CFR part 193 and the National Fire Protection Association 59A LNG 
Standards. For new facilities, the siting requirements of 49 CFR part 
193, subpart B, must be given special attention. If applicable, vapor 
dispersion calculations from LNG spills over water should also be 
presented to ensure compliance with the U.S. Coast Guard's LNG 
regulations in 33 CFR part 127.
    (15) Provide seismic information specified in Data Requirements for 
the Seismic Review of LNG facilities (NBSIR 84-2833, available from 
FERC staff) for facilities that would be located in zone 2, 3, or 4 of 
the Uniform Building Code Seismic Map of the United States.
    53. New Sec. 380.13 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 380.13  Compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    (1) Listed species and critical habitat have the same meaning as 
provided in 50 CFR 402.02.
    (2) Project area means any area subject to construction activities 
(for example, material storage sites, temporary work areas, and new 
access roads) necessary to install or abandon the facilities.
    (b) Procedures for informal consultation.--(1) Designation of non-
Federal representative. The project sponsor is designated as the 
Commission's non-Federal representative for purposes of informal 
consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA).
    (2) Consultation requirement. (i) Prior to the filing of the 
environmental report specified in Sec. 380.12, the project sponsor must 
contact the appropriate regional or field office of the FWS or the 
NMFS, or both if appropriate, to initiate informal consultations, 
unless it is proceeding pursuant to a blanket clearance issued by the 
FWS and/or NMFS which is less than 1 year old and the clearance does 
not specify more frequent consultation.
    (ii) If a blanket clearance is more than 1 year old or less than 1 
year old and specifies more frequent consultations, or if the project 
sponsor is not proceeding pursuant to a blanket clearance, the project 
sponsor must request a list of

[[Page 26618]]

federally listed or proposed species and designated or proposed 
critical habitat that may be present in the project area, or provide 
the consulted agency with such a list for its concurrence.
    (iii) The consulted agency will provide a species and critical 
habitat list or concur with the species list provided within 30 days of 
its receipt of the initial request. In the event that the consulted 
agency does not provide this information within this time period, the 
project sponsor may notify the Director of the Office of Pipeline 
Regulation and continue with the remaining procedures of this section.
    (3) End of informal consultation. (i) At any time during the 
informal consultations, the consulted agency may determine or confirm:
    (A) That no listed or proposed species, or designated or proposed 
critical habitat, occurs in the project area; or
    (B) That the project is not likely to adversely affect a listed 
species or critical habitat;
    (ii) If the consulted agency provides the determination or 
confirmation described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, no 
further consultation is required.
    (4) Potential impact to proposed species. (i) If the consulted 
agency, pursuant to informal consultations, initially determines that 
any species proposed to be listed, or proposed critical habitat, occurs 
in the project area, the project sponsor must confer with the consulted 
agency on methods to avoid or reduce the potential impact.
    (ii) The project sponsor shall include in its proposal, a 
discussion of any mitigating measures recommended through the 
consultation process.
    (5) Continued informal consultations for listed species. (i) If the 
consulted agency initially determines, pursuant to the informal 
consultations, that a listed species or designated critical habitat may 
occur in the project area, the project sponsor must continue informal 
consultations with the consulted agency to determine if the proposed 
project may affect the species or designated critical habitat. These 
consultations may include discussions with experts (including experts 
provided by the consulted agency), habitat identification, field 
surveys, biological analyses, and the formulation of mitigation 
measures. If the provided information indicates that the project is not 
likely to adversely affect a listed species or critical habitat, the 
consulting agency will provide a letter of concurrence which completes 
informal consultation.
    (ii) The project sponsor must prepare a Biological Assessment 
unless the consulted agency indicates that the proposed project is not 
likely to adversely affect a specific listed species or its designated 
critical habitat. The Biological Assessment must contain the following 
information for each species contained in the consulted agency's 
species list:
    (A) Life history and habitat requirements;
    (B) Results of detailed surveys to determine if individuals, 
populations, or suitable, unoccupied habitat exists in the proposed 
project's area of effect;
    (C) Potential impacts, both beneficial and negative, that could 
result from the construction and operation of the proposed project, or 
disturbance associated with the abandonment, if applicable; and
    (D) Proposed mitigation that would eliminate or minimize these 
potential impacts.
    (iii) All surveys must be conducted by qualified biologists and 
must use FWS and/or NMFS approved survey methodology. In addition, the 
Biological Assessment must include the following information:
    (A) Name(s) and qualifications of person(s) conducting the survey;
    (B) Survey methodology;
    (C) Date of survey(s); and
    (D) Detailed and site-specific identification of size and location 
of all areas surveyed.
    (iv) The project sponsor must provide a draft Biological Assessment 
directly to the environmental staff of the Office of Pipeline 
Regulation for review and comment and/or submission to the consulted 
agency. If the consulted agency fails to provide formal comments on the 
Biological Assessment to the project sponsor within 30 days of its 
receipt, as specified in 50 CFR 402.120, the project sponsor may notify 
the Director, OPR, and follow the procedures in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (v) The consulted agency's comments on the Biological Assessment's 
determination must be filed with the Commission.
    (c) Notification to Director. In the event that the consulted 
agency fails to respond to requests by the project sponsor under 
paragraph (b) of this section, the project sponsor must notify the 
Director of the Office of Pipeline Regulation. The notification must 
include all information, reports, letters, and other correspondence 
prepared pursuant to this section. The Director will determine whether:
    (1) Additional informal consultation is required;
    (2) Formal consultation must be initiated under paragraph (d) of 
this section; or
    (3) Construction may proceed.
    (d) Procedures for formal consultation. (1) In the event that 
formal consultation is required pursuant to paragraphs (b)(5)(v) or 
(c)(2) of this section, the Commission staff will initiate formal 
consultation with the FWS and/or NMFS, as appropriate, and will request 
that the consulted agency designate a lead Regional Office, lead Field/
District Office, and Project Manager, as necessary, to facilitate the 
formal consultation process. In addition, the Commission will designate 
a contact for formal consultation purposes.
    (2) During formal consultation, the consulted agency, the 
Commission, and the project sponsor will coordinate and consult to 
determine potential impacts and mitigation which can be implemented to 
minimize impacts. The Commission and the consulted agency will schedule 
coordination meetings and/or field visits as necessary.
    (3) The formal consultation period will last no longer than 90 
days, unless the consulted agency, the Commission, and project sponsor 
mutually agree to an extension of this time period.
    (4) The consulted agency will provide the Commission with a 
Biological Opinion on the proposed project, as specified in 50 CFR 
402.14(e), within 45 days of the completion of formal consultation.
    54. New Sec. 380.14 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 380.14  Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.

    (a) Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) (NHPA), requires the Commission take into 
account the effect of a proposed project on any historic property and 
to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) an 
opportunity to comment on projects if required under 36 CFR 800. The 
project sponsor, as a non-Federal party, assists the Commission in 
meeting its obligations under NHPA section 106 and the implementing 
regulations at 36 CFR part 800 by following the procedures at 
Sec. 380.12(f). The project sponsor may contact the Commission at any 
time for assistance. The Commission will review the resultant filings.
    (1) The Commission's NHPA section 106 responsibilities apply to 
public and private lands, unless subject to the provisions of paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section. The project sponsor will assist the Commission 
in taking into account

[[Page 26619]]

the views of interested parties, Native Americans, and tribal leaders.
    (2) If Federal or Tribal land is affected by a proposed project, 
the project sponsor shall adhere to any requirements for cultural 
resources studies of the applicable Federal land- managing agencies on 
Federal lands and any tribal requirements on Tribal lands. The project 
sponsor must identify, in Resource Report 4 filed with the application, 
the status of cultural resources studies on Federal or Tribal lands, as 
applicable.
    (3) The project sponsor must consult with the SHPO(s) and THPOs, if 
appropriate. If the SHPO or THPO declines to consult with the project 
sponsor, the project sponsor shall not continue with consultations, 
except as instructed by the Director of the Office of Pipeline 
Regulation.
    (4) If the project is covered by an agreement document among the 
Commission, Council, SHPO(s), THPO(s), land-managing agencies, project 
sponsors, and interested persons, as appropriate, then that agreement 
will provide for compliance with NHPA section 106, as applicable.
    (b) [Reserved]
    55. New Sec. 380.15 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 380.15  Siting and maintenance requirements.

    (a) Avoidance or minimization of effects. The siting, construction, 
and maintenance of facilities shall be undertaken in a way that avoids 
or minimizes effects on scenic, historic, wildlife, and recreational 
values.
    (b) Landowner consideration. The desires of landowners should be 
taken into account in the planning, locating, clearing, and maintenance 
of rights-of-way and the construction of facilities on their property, 
so long as the result is consistent with applicable requirements of 
law, including laws relating to land-use and any requirements imposed 
by the Commission.
    (c) Safety regulations. The requirements of this paragraph do not 
affect a project sponsor's obligation to comply with safety regulations 
of the U.S. Department of Transportation and recognized safe 
engineering practices.
    (d) Pipeline construction.
    (1) The use, widening, or extension of existing rights-of-way must 
be considered in locating proposed facilities.
    (2) In locating proposed facilities, the project sponsor shall, to 
the extent practicable, avoid places listed on, or eligible for listing 
on, the National Register of Historic Places; natural landmarks listed 
on the National Register of Natural Landmarks; officially designated 
parks; wetlands; and scenic, recreational, and wildlife lands. If 
rights-of-way must be routed near or through such places, attempts 
should be made to minimize visibility from areas of public view and to 
preserve the character and existing environment of the area.
    (3) Rights-of-way should avoid forested areas and steep slopes 
where practical.
    (4) Rights-of-way clearing should be kept to the minimum width 
necessary.
    (5) In selecting a method to clear rights-of-way, soil stability 
and protection of natural vegetation and adjacent resources should be 
taken into account.
    (6) Trees and vegetation cleared from rights-of-way in areas of 
public view should be disposed of without undue delay.
    (7) Remaining trees and shrubs should not be unnecessarily damaged.
    (8) Long foreground views of cleared rights-of-way through wooded 
areas that are visible from areas of public view should be avoided.
    (9) Where practical, rights-of-way should avoid crossing hills and 
other high points at their crests where the crossing is in a forested 
area and the resulting notch is clearly visible in the foreground from 
areas of public view.
    (10) Screen plantings should be employed where rights-of-way enter 
forested areas from a clearing and where the clearing is plainly 
visible in the foreground from areas of public view.
    (11) Temporary roads should be designed for proper drainage and 
built to minimize soil erosion. Upon abandonment, the road area should 
be restored and stabilized without undue delay.
    (e) Right-of-way maintenance.
    (1) Vegetation covers established on a right-of-way should be 
properly maintained.
    (2) Access and service roads should be maintained with proper 
cover, water bars, and the proper slope to minimize soil erosion. They 
should be jointly used with other utilities and land-management 
agencies where practical.
    (3) Chemical control of vegetation should not be used unless 
authorized by the landowner or land-managing agency. When chemicals are 
used for control of vegetation, they should be approved by EPA for such 
use and used in conformance with all applicable regulations.
    (f) Construction of aboveground facilities.
    (1) Unobtrusive sites should be selected for the location of 
aboveground facilities.
    (2) Aboveground facilities should cover the minimum area 
practicable.
    (3) Noise potential should be considered in locating compressor 
stations, or other aboveground facilities.
    (4) The exterior of aboveground facilities should be harmonious 
with the surroundings and other buildings in the area.
    (5) The site of aboveground facilities which are visible from 
nearby residences or public areas, should be planted in trees and 
shrubs, or other appropriate landscaping and should be installed to 
enhance the appearance of the facilities, consistent with operating 
needs.
    56. Appendix A to Part 380 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 380--Minimum Filing Requirements for Environmental 
Reports Under the Natural Gas Act.

BILLING CODE 6714-01-U

Environmental Reports Under the Natural Gas Act.

Resource Report 1--General Project Description

    1. Provide a detailed description and location map of the project 
facilities. (Sec. 380.12(c)(1)).
    2. Describe any nonjurisdictional facilities that would be built in 
association with the project. (Sec. 380.12(c)(2)).
    3. Provide current original U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-
minute-series topographic maps with mileposts showing the project 
facilities; (Sec. 380.12(c)(3)).
    4. Provide aerial images or photographs or alignment sheets based 
on these sources with mileposts showing the project facilities; 
(Sec. 380.12(c)(3)).
    5. Provide plot/site plans of compressor stations showing the 
location of the nearest noise-sensitive areas (NSA) within 1 mile. 
(Sec. 380.12(c)(3,4)).
    6. Describe construction and restoration methods. 
(Sec. 380.12(c)(6)).
    7. Identify the permits required for construction across surface 
waters. (Sec. 380.12(c)(9)).
    8. Provide the names and addresses of all landowners whose land 
would be crossed by the project facilities. Include the names and 
addresses of all residents adjacent to new or modified compressor 
stations. (Sec. 380.12(c)(10)).

Resource Report 2--Water Use and Quality

    1. Identify all perennial surface waterbodies crossed by the 
proposed project and their water quality classification. 
(Sec. 380.12(d)(1)).

[[Page 26620]]

    2. Identify all waterbody crossings that may have contaminated 
waters or sediments. (Sec. 380.12(d)(1)).
    3. Identify watershed areas, designated surface water protection 
areas, and sensitive waterbodies crossed by the proposed project. 
(Sec. 380.12(d)(1)).
    4. Provide a table (based on NWI maps if delineations have not been 
done) identifying all wetlands, by milepost and length, crossed by the 
project (including abandoned pipeline), and the total acreage and 
acreage of each wetland type that would be affected by construction. 
(Sec. 380.12(d)(1 & 4)).
    5. Discuss construction and restoration methods proposed for 
crossing wetlands, and compare them to staff's Wetland and Waterbody 
Construction and Mitigation Procedures; (Sec. 380.12(d)(2)).
    6. Describe the proposed waterbody construction, impact mitigation, 
and restoration methods to be used to cross surface waters and compare 
to the staff's Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 
Procedures. (Sec. 380.12(d)(2)).
    7. Provide original National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps or the 
appropriate state wetland maps, if NWI maps are not available, that 
show all proposed facilities and include milepost locations for 
proposed pipeline routes. (Sec. 380.12(d)(4)).
    8. Identify all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- or 
state- designated aquifers crossed. (Sec. 380.12(d)(9)).

Resource Report 3--Vegetation and Wildlife

    1. Classify the fishery type of each surface waterbody that would 
be crossed, including fisheries of special concern. 
(Sec. 380.12(e)(1)).
    2. Describe terrestrial and wetland wildlife and habitats that 
would be affected by the project. (Sec. 380.12(e)(2)).
    3. Describe the major vegetative cover types that would be crossed 
and provide the acreage of each vegetative cover type that would be 
affected by construction. (Sec. 380.12(e)(3)).
    4. Describe the effects of construction and operation procedures on 
the fishery resources and proposed mitigation measures. 
(Sec. 380.12(e)(4)).
    5. Evaluate the potential for short-term, long-term, and permanent 
impact on the wildlife resources and state-listed endangered or 
threatened species caused by construction and operation of the project 
and proposed mitigation measures. (Sec. 380.12(e)(4)).
    6. Identify all federally listed or proposed endangered or 
threatened species that potentially occur in the vicinity of the 
project and discussion results of consultations with other agencies. 
(Sec. 380.12(e)(5)).
    7. Describe any significant biological resources that would be 
affected. Describe impact and any mitigation proposed to avoid or 
minimize that impact. (Sec. 380.12(e)(4 & 6)).

Resource Report 4--Cultural Resources

    See Sec. 380.14 and ``OPR's Guidelines for Reporting on Cultural 
Resources Investigations'' for further guidance.
    1. Initial cultural resources consultation and documentation, and 
documentation of consultation with Native Americans. 
(Sec. 380.12(f)(1)(ii) & (2)).
    2. Overview/Survey Report(s). (Sec. 380.12(f)(1)(iii) & (2)).

Resource Report 5--Socioeconomics

    1. For major aboveground facilities and major pipeline projects 
that require an EIS, describe existing socioeconomic conditions within 
the project area. (Sec. 380.12(g)(1)).
    2. For major aboveground facilities, quantify impact on employment, 
housing, local government services, local tax revenues, transportation, 
and other relevant factors within the project area. (Sec. 380.12(g)(2-
6)).

Resource Report 6--Geological Resources

    1. Identify the location (by milepost) of mineral resources and any 
planned or active surface mines crossed by the proposed facilities. 
(Sec. 380.12(h)(1 & 2)).
    2. Identify any geologic hazards to the proposed facilities. 
(Sec. 380.12(h)(2))
    3. Discuss the need for and locations where blasting may be 
necessary in order to construct the proposed facilities. 
(Sec. 380.12(h)(3))
    4. For LNG projects in seismic areas, the materials required by 
``Data Requirements for the Seismic Review of LNG Facilities,'' 
NBSIR84-2833. (Sec. 380.12(h)(5))
    5. For underground storage facilities, how drilling activity by 
others within or adjacent to the facilities would be monitored, and how 
old wells would be located and monitored within the facility 
boundaries. (Sec. 380.12(h)(6))

Resource Report 7--Soils

    1. Identify, describe, and group by milepost the soils affected by 
the proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities. (Sec. 380.12(i)(1))
    2. For aboveground facilities that would occupy sites over 5 acres, 
determine the acreage of prime farmland soils that would be affected by 
construction and operation. (Sec. 380.12(i)(2))
    3. Describe, by milepost, potential impacts on soils. 
(Sec. 380.12(i)(3,4))
    4. Identify proposed mitigation to minimize impact on soils, and 
compare with the staff's Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 
Maintenance Plan. (Sec. 380.12(i)(5))

Resource Report 8--Land Use, Recreation and Aesthetics

    1. Classify and quantify land use affected by: (Sec. 380.12(j)(1))
    a. Pipeline construction and permanent rights-of-way 
(Sec. 380.12(j)(1));
    b. Extra work/staging areas (Sec. 380.12(j)(1));
    c. Access roads (Sec. 380.12(j)(1));
    d. Pipe and contractor yards (Sec. 380.12(j)(1)); and
    e. Aboveground facilities (Sec. 380.12(j)(1)).
    2. Identify by milepost all locations where the pipeline right-of-
way would at least partially coincide with existing right-of-way, where 
it would be adjacent to existing rights-of-way, and where it would be 
outside of existing right-of-way. (Sec. 380.12(j)(1))
    3. Provide detailed typical construction right-of-way cross-section 
diagrams showing information such as widths and relative locations of 
existing rights-of-way, new permanent right-of-way, and temporary 
construction right-of-way. (Sec. 380.12(j)(1))
    4. Summarize the total acreage of land affected by construction and 
operation of the project. (Sec. 380.12(j)(1))
    5. Identify by milepost all planned residential or commercial/
business development and the time frame for construction. 
(Sec. 380.12(j)(3))
    6. Identify by milepost special land uses (e.g., sugar maple 
stands, specialty crops, natural areas, national and state forests, 
conservation land, etc.). (Sec. 380.12(j)(4))
    7. Identify by beginning milepost and length of crossing all land 
administered by Federal, state, or local agencies, or private 
conservation organizations. (Sec. 380.12(j)(4))
    8. Identify by milepost all natural, recreational, or scenic areas, 
and all registered natural landmarks crossed by the project. 
(Sec. 380.12(j)(4 & 6))
    9. Identify all facilities that would be within designated coastal 
zone management areas. (Sec. 380.12(j)(4))
    10. Identify by milepost all residences that would be within 50 
feet of the construction right-of-way or extra work area. 
(Sec. 380.12(j)(5))
    11. Identify all designated or proposed candidate National or State 
Wild and Scenic Rivers crossed by the project. (Sec. 380.12(j)(6))
    12. Describe any measures to visually screen aboveground 
facilities, such as compressor stations. (Sec. 380.12(j)(11))
    13. Demonstrate that applications for rights-of-way or other 
proposed land use

[[Page 26621]]

have been or soon will be filed with Federal land-managing agencies 
with jurisdiction over land that would be affected by the project. 
(Sec. 380.12(j)(12))

Resource Report 9--Air and Noise Quality

    1. Describe existing air quality in the vicinity of the project. 
(Sec. 380.12(k)(1))
    2. Quantify the existing noise levels (day-night sound level 
(Ldn) and other applicable noise parameters) at noise-
sensitive areas and at other areas covered by relevant state and local 
noise ordinances. (Sec. 380.12(k)(2))
    3. Quantify existing and proposed emissions of compressor 
equipment, plus construction emissions, including nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO), and the basis for these 
calculations. Summarize anticipated air quality impacts for the 
project. (Sec. 380.12(k)(3))
    4. Describe the existing and proposed compressor units at each 
station where new, additional, or modified compression units are 
proposed, including the manufacturer, model number, and horsepower of 
the compressor units. (Sec. 380.12(k)(4))
    5. Identify any nearby noise-sensitive area by distance and 
direction from the proposed compressor unit building/enclosure. 
(Sec. 380.12(k)(4))
    6. Identify any applicable state or local noise regulations. 
(Sec. 380.12(k)(4))
    7. Calculate the noise impact at noise-sensitive areas of the 
proposed compressor unit modifications or additions, specifying how the 
impact was calculated, including manufacturer's data and proposed noise 
control equipment. (Sec. 380.12(k)(4))

Resource Report 10--Alternatives

    1. Address the ``no action'' alternative. (Sec. 380.12(l)(1))
    2. For large projects, address the effect of energy conservation or 
energy alternatives to the project. (Sec. 380.12(l)(1))
    3. Identify system alternatives considered during the 
identification of the project and provide the rationale for rejecting 
each alternative. (Sec. 380.12(l)(1))
    4. Identify major and minor route alternatives considered to avoid 
impact on sensitive environmental areas (e.g., wetlands, parks, or 
residences) and provide sufficient comparative data to justify the 
selection of the proposed route. (Sec. 380.12(l)(3))
    5. Identify alternative sites considered for the location of major 
new aboveground facilities and provide sufficient comparative data to 
justify the selection of the proposed site. (Sec. 380.12(l)(3))

Resource Report 11--Reliability and Safety

    Describe how the project facilities would be designed, constructed, 
operated, and maintained to minimize potential hazard to the public 
from the failure of project components as a result of accidents or 
natural catastrophes. (Sec. 380.12(m))

Resource Report 12--PCB Contamination

    1. For projects involving the replacement or abandonment of 
facilities determined to have PCBs, provide a statement that activities 
would comply with an approved EPA disposal permit or with the 
requirements of the TSCA. (Sec. 380.12(n)(1))
    2. For compressor station modifications on sites that have been 
determined to have soils contaminated with PCBs, describe the status of 
remediation efforts completed to date. (Sec. 380.12(n)(2))

Resource Report 13--Additional Information Related to LNG Plants

    Provide all the listed detailed engineering materials. 
(Sec. 380.12(o))

Billing Code 6714-01-M

PART 385--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

    57. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 
U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 
U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1085.

    58. In Sec. 385.2001, paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 385.2001  Filings (Rule 2001).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The Secretary, or the office director to whom the filing has 
been referred, will send a letter of rejection with an indication of 
the deficiencies in the filing and the reasons for rejection.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-11247 Filed 5-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-U