[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 62 (Thursday, April 1, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16337-16345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6976]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket Nos. RM96-1-030 and RM96-1-036; Order No. 587-U]


Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
amending its regulations that establish standards for interstate 
natural gas pipeline business practices and electronic communications 
to incorporate by reference into its regulations the most recent 
version of the standards, Version 1.9, adopted by the Wholesale Gas 
Quadrant (WGQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) 
applicable to natural gas pipelines, with certain enumerated 
exceptions. This rule upgrades the Commission's current business 
practice and communication standards to include standards governing 
Index-Based Capacity Release and Flexible Delivery and Receipt Points 
and to reflect the Commission's findings in Order Nos. 698, 712, 717, 
and 682. This rule will increase the efficiency of the pipeline grid 
and make pipelines' electronic communications more secure.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective May 3, 2010. 
Natural gas pipelines are required to file tariff sheets to reflect the 
changed standards on September 1, 2010, to take effect on November 1, 
2010. Implementation of these standards is required on and after 
November 1, 2010. The incorporation by reference of certain 
publications in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register as of May 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ryan M. Irwin (technical issues), Office of Energy Market Regulation, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6454.
Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-8321.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                            Table of Contents
 
                                                               Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.
 
I. Background...............................................           2
II. Discussion..............................................          11
    A. Incorporation of the NAESB Standards by Reference....          11
    B. Issues Raised by Commenters..........................          15
        1. Waivers of the Index-Based Capacity Release                15
         Pricing Standards..................................
        2. Issues on Which Consensus Could Not Be Reached...          19
            a. Intra-Day Nominations........................          19
            b. Gas Quality Posting..........................          28
III. Implementation Schedule and Procedures.................          35
IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards..........          40
V. Information Collection Statement.........................          41
VI. Environmental Analysis..................................          51
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act.............................          52
VIII. Document Availability.................................          55
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification...........          58
 


[[Page 16338]]

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Marc Spitzer, Philip 
D. Moeller, and John R. Norris.

Final Rule

Issued March 24, 2010.
    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
amending Sec.  284.12 of its regulations (which establishes standards 
for natural gas pipeline business practices and electronic 
communications) \1\ to incorporate by reference the most recent version 
(Version 1.9) of the standards promulgated by the Wholesale Gas 
Quadrant (WGQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB). 
This rule upgrades the Commission's current business practice and 
communication standards to include standards governing Index-Based 
Capacity Release and Flexible Delivery and Receipt Points and to 
reflect the Commission's findings in Order Nos. 698, 712, 717, and 
682.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 284.12.
    \2\ Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines, Order No. 698, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,251 (2007), order 
on clarification and reh'g, Order No. 698-A, 121 FERC ] 61,264 
(2007); Promotion of a More Efficient Capacity Release Market, Order 
No. 712, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,271 (2008), order on reh'g, Order 
No. 712-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,284 (2008); Standards of Conduct 
for Transmission Providers, Order No. 717, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 
31,280 (2008), Revision of Regulations to Require Reporting of 
Damage to Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, Order No. 682, FERC 
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,227 (2006). We also take this opportunity to 
update Sec.  284.12(a)(2) to reflect NAESB's new address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Since 1996, in the Order No. 587 series,\3\ the Commission has 
adopted regulations to standardize the business practices and 
communication methodologies of interstate pipelines in order to create 
a more integrated and efficient pipeline grid. In this series of 
orders, the Commission incorporated by reference consensus standards 
developed by NAESB (formerly the Gas Industry Standards Board or GISB), 
a private consensus standards developer composed of members from all 
segments of the natural gas industry. NAESB is an accredited standards 
organization under the auspices of the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 (Jul. 26, 1996), FERC Stats. & 
Regs. ] 31,038 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. A cold snap in January 2004 in New England highlighted the need 
for better coordination and communication between the gas and electric 
industries as coincident peaks occurred in both industries making the 
acquisition of gas and transportation by power plant operators more 
difficult. In response to this need, in early 2004, NAESB established a 
Gas-Electric Coordination Task Force to examine issues related to the 
interrelationship of the gas and electric industries and identify 
potential areas for improved coordination through standardization. 
NAESB developed a number of standards to enhance the coordination of 
scheduling and other business practices between the gas and electric 
industries.
    4. On June 27, 2005, NAESB filed these standards with the 
Commission and requested clarification regarding a number of additional 
proposals that it was considering, including capacity release indexed 
pricing, the use of flexible receipt and delivery points upstream of a 
constraint, and changes to the intra-day nomination cycle. The 2005 
NAESB report highlighted several issues relating to Commission policy 
that were inhibiting the development of additional standards and 
requested Commission guidance and clarification on these issues.
    5. In Order No. 698, the Commission incorporated by reference 
certain NAESB business practices standards for interstate natural gas 
pipelines designed to improve coordination and communication between 
the gas and electric industries. The order also provided clarification 
and guidance on three issues on which NAESB had been unable to reach a 
consensus: (1) Uses of gas indices for pricing capacity release 
transactions; (2) flexibility in the use of receipt and delivery 
points; and (3) changes to the intraday nomination schedule to increase 
the number of scheduling opportunities for firm shippers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Order No. 698, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,251 at P 1, 55-
57, 63-64, 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On September 3, 2008, NAESB submitted a report to the Commission 
on these three issues. NAESB reports that its membership conducted 
thirteen subcommittee meetings, many of which were multi-day meetings, 
held between June 2007 and July 2008. While the standards discussed 
related only to gas issues, NAESB states that all interested parties, 
including the Wholesale Electric Quadrant membership, were invited to 
participate and share their perspectives. Two hundred people, including 
many from the electric industry, participated in these meetings.
    7. NAESB's September 2008 report also states that the WGQ has 
adopted business practice standards for (1) increasing the flexibility 
of gas receipt and delivery points and (2) index-based pricing for 
capacity releases. In addition, despite holding 12 meetings with 
respect to modifying the intra-day nomination schedule, NAESB reports 
that none of the proposed standards for revised intra-day nominations 
achieved a sufficient consensus for adoption.
    8. On July 16, 2009, after a review of the new and revised 
standards referenced in NAESB's September 2008 Report, the Commission 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed to amend the 
Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 to incorporate by reference 
the consensus standards adopted by NAESB's WGQ that (1) permit the use 
of indices to price capacity release transactions and (2) afford 
greater flexibility on the receipt and delivery points for redirects of 
scheduled gas quantities.\5\ The Commission also noted that the 
industry was unable to reach consensus on increasing opportunities for 
intra-day nominations. Seven entities filed comments in response to the 
July 2009 NOPR.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 74 FR 36633 (Jul. 24, 
2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,645 (2009) (July 2009 NOPR).
    \6\ The entities that filed comments and the abbreviations used 
in this Final Rule to identify these entities are listed in Appendix 
A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. On September 30, 2009, NAESB filed a report informing the 
Commission that it had adopted and ratified Version 1.9 of its business 
practice standards applicable to natural gas pipelines.\7\ The Version 
1.9 standards are the result of a continuing effort by NAESB's WGQ and 
the gas industry to add additional specificity and functionality to gas 
standards. For example, the Version 1.9 Business Practice Standards now 
include communication standards and protocols concerning the use of 
index-based pricing for capacity releases, which the Commission 
proposed to adopt in the July 2009 NOPR, and new standards adopted in 
response to Order Nos. 698, 712, 717, and 682. In addition, these new 
and modified standards now support the ability of pipelines to redirect 
gas around constraints, provide additional gas quality and 
transactional reporting, and add new information posting requirements 
for Web sites and browsers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The business practice standards addressed in the July 2009 
NOPR are included as part of the Version 1.9 Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. On November 19, 2009, the Commission issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking that proposed to amend the Commission's regulations 
at 18 CFR 284.12 to incorporate by reference the latest version 
(Version 1.9) of consensus business practice standards adopted by 
NAESB's WGQ applicable to natural gas pipelines.\8\ Three entities 
filed

[[Page 16339]]

comments in response to the November 2009 NOPR.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 74 FR 62261 (Nov. 27, 
2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,649 (2009) (November 2009 NOPR).
    \9\ See supra n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Incorporation of the NAESB Standards by Reference

    11. After a review of the comments filed in response to the two 
NOPRs, the Commission will amend part 284 of its regulations to 
incorporate by reference Version 1.9 of the NAESB WGQ's consensus 
standards, with the two exceptions noted in the November 2009 NOPR.\10\ 
The Version 1.9 Standards include communication standards and protocols 
related to the business practice standards dealing with index-based 
capacity release, which the Commission proposed to adopt in the July 
2009 NOPR, and new standards adopted in response to Order Nos. 698, 
712, 717, and 682. These new and modified standards provide additional 
flexibility to shippers. The standards create a uniform method that 
will enable releasing and replacement shippers to use third-party rate 
indices to create rate formulas for capacity releases that will better 
reflect the value of capacity. These standards also reflect a 
reasonable compromise for dealing with copyright issues that arise in 
using copyrighted gas indices to set prices, ensuring that shippers 
have a reasonable choice of available indices to use while equitably 
spreading the costs entailed by the use of such indices among the 
pipelines and shippers. The standard for the use of flexible receipt 
and delivery points will enable all shippers to quickly and efficiently 
redirect gas when such gas may be needed by gas generators or other 
shippers. In addition, the standards will provide for more uniform 
reporting for gas quality and new information posting requirements for 
Web sites and browsers. Adoption of the Version 1.9 Standards will 
continue the process of updating and improving NAESB's business 
practice standards for the wholesale gas market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As proposed in the November 2009 NOPR, the Commission is 
continuing its past practice and is not incorporating by reference 
Standards 4.3.4 and 10.3.2, because they are inconsistent with the 
Commission's record retention requirement in 18 CFR 284.12(b)(3)(v). 
In addition, the Commission is not incorporating by reference the 
WEQ/WGQ eTariff Related Standards because the Commission has already 
adopted standards and protocols for electronic tariff filings based 
on the NAESB Standards. See Electronic Tariff Filings, FERC Stats. & 
Regs. ] 31,276 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. To implement these standards, natural gas pipelines will be 
required to file tariff sheets to reflect the changed standards on 
September 1, 2010, to take effect on November 1, 2010, and will be 
required to implement these standards on and after November 1, 2010.
    13. NAESB approved the Version 1.9 Standards under NAESB's 
consensus procedures.\11\ As the Commission found in Order No. 587, 
adoption of consensus standards is appropriate because the consensus 
process helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by requiring 
that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of industry 
participants representing all segments of the industry. Moreover, since 
the industry itself has to conduct business under these standards, the 
Commission's regulations should reflect those standards that have the 
widest possible support. In section 12(d) of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTT&AA), Congress affirmatively 
requires Federal agencies to use technical standards developed by 
voluntary consensus standards organizations, like NAESB, as means to 
carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies 
unless use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This process first requires a super-majority vote of 17 out 
of 25 members of the WGQ's Executive Committee with support from at 
least two members from each of the five industry segments--
Distributors, End Users, Pipelines, Producers, and Services 
(including marketers and computer service providers). For final 
approval, 67 percent of the WGQ's general membership voting must 
ratify the standards.
    \12\ Public Law 104-113, Sec.  12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15 
U.S.C. 272 note (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The comments on both NOPRs generally supported the adoption of 
the standards. We will address below the few issues raised in the 
comments.

B. Issues Raised by Commenters

1. Waivers of the Index-Based Capacity Release Pricing Standards 
Comments
    15. Carolina does not object to incorporation of the capacity 
release index-based standards, but states that ``substantial costs and 
administrative burdens would be imposed on Carolina unnecessarily if it 
was required to fulfill all of the requirements of the standards 
adopted by NAESB to address index-based capacity releases.'' \13\ 
Furthermore, Carolina states that in almost three years of operation as 
an interstate pipeline, no shipper has requested index-based pricing 
for a capacity release on Carolina's system, and Carolina itself has 
not sold capacity on its system using index prices. In addition, 
Carolina stated that because of its small staff, the time and cost of 
implementing the standards would far exceed the estimates of the 
NOPR.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Carolina Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at 2.
    \14\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Carolina concludes by stating that as long as a pipeline 
supports index-based capacity releases in a manner adequate to its 
circumstances and the needs of its shippers, the Commission's policies 
would be fulfilled. Alternatively, the Commission, in its final rule, 
should indicate its willingness to grant waivers of the capacity 
release standards to pipelines operating under the circumstances and 
needs of its shippers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. AGA supports Carolina's argument on the availability of 
waivers, and argues that, to the extent the particular circumstances of 
an individual pipeline warrants additional time to implement these 
standards, the pipeline should seek a waiver of the regulations. In 
this regard, AGA believes the Commission should consider Carolina's 
concerns described in their comments regarding their specific 
circumstances in an individual proceeding on a request for waiver as 
opposed to revising the Final Rule to address potential implementation 
issues.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ AGA Reply Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Finding
    18. Determining whether a waiver or extension of time, or whether a 
non-standard process may be appropriate for an individual pipeline 
based on their particular circumstances cannot be determined 
generically in a final rule. Carolina needs to raise such issues in its 
compliance filing or in a request for waiver, so that its shippers will 
have an opportunity to intervene and raise any concerns with Carolina's 
proposals.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., WestGas InterState, Inc., 130 FERC ] 61,165, at 
P 4 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Issues On Which Consensus Could Not Be Reached
a. Intra-Day Nominations Background
    19. In the July 2009 NOPR,\18\ the Commission determined not to 
propose regulations to resolve a disputed issue relating to revising 
the schedule for intra-day nominations. The Commission's regulations 
provide that nominations by shippers with firm transportation service 
have priority over nominations by shippers with interruptible 
service.\19\ In Order No.

[[Page 16340]]

587-G,\20\ issued in 1998, the Commission, however, followed the Gas 
Industry Standards Board \21\ consensus and permitted pipelines with 
three intra-day nomination opportunities to exempt the last intra-day 
opportunity from bumping. The Commission found that the consensus 
created a fair balance between firm shippers, who will have had two 
opportunities to reschedule their gas, and interruptible shippers and 
will provide some necessary stability in the nomination system, so that 
shippers can be confident by mid-afternoon that they will receive their 
scheduled flows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ July 2009 NOPR at P 6, 19-20.
    \19\ 18 CFR 284.12 (b)(1)(i).
    \20\ Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines, Order No. 587-G, 63 FR 20072 (Apr. 23, 1998), FERC Stats. 
& Regs. ] 31,062, at 30,672 (1998).
    \21\ At that time, NAESB was the Gas Industry Standards Board 
and had not yet expanded to include the electric industry or the 
retail gas and electric segments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. The NAESB standards currently provide shippers four nomination 
opportunities: The Timely Nomination Period (11:30 a.m. CCT \22\ the 
day prior to gas flow), the Evening Nomination Cycle (6 p.m. CCT the 
day before gas flow); Intra-Day 1 (10 a.m. CCT the day of gas flow); 
and Intra-Day 2 (5 p.m. CCT the day of gas flow). A firm nomination for 
the first three nomination cycles has priority over (can bump) an 
already scheduled interruptible (IT) nomination. But at the Intra-Day 2 
cycle, a firm nomination will not bump already scheduled interruptible 
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Central clock time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Nomination time
              Cycle                        (CCT)         Nomination effective       Bumping IT          Bumping notice          Schedule confirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timely...........................  11:30 a.m...........  Day-Ahead...........  Yes.................  4:30 p.m...........  4:30 p.m.
Evening..........................  6 p.m...............  Day-Ahead...........  Yes.................  10 p.m.............  10 p.m.
Intra-Day 1......................  10 a.m..............  Day of..............  Yes.................  2 p.m..............  2 p.m.
Intra-Day 2......................  5 p.m...............  Day of..............  No..................  NA.................  9 p.m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. A number of parties urged NAESB to consider revising these 
timelines to better coordinate scheduling for the gas and electric 
industries. The NAESB committee held 12 meetings and considered a wide 
variety of possible revisions to the nomination schedule adopted in 
1998. These included complete revisions of the timeline, including 
changing the gas day; adding intra-day nomination opportunities within 
the existing framework; changing the Intra-Day 2 to a bump nomination 
while adding an additional no-bump nomination period, and merely 
changing the Intra-Day 2 cycle to a bumpable nomination. None of these 
proposals achieved a sufficient consensus at the subcommittee level.
    22. In the July NOPR, we did not propose to resolve the dispute, 
finding that ``a simple, one-size fits-all solution does not exist that 
will solve the complex issue of coordinating between the electric and 
gas industries, [because] the diversity within the electric industry 
(e.g., differing timelines, system peaks times, generation mixes, and 
prevalence of firm gas service), in particular, does not suggest that 
revising gas scheduling procedures is the most effective means to 
improve coordination.'' \23\ Based on the extensive NAESB record that 
we reviewed, we were not convinced that we have a sufficient basis for 
finding that any of the proposed revisions create a superior balance of 
interests compared with the original consensus.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ July 16 NOPR at P 21 (citing NAESB September 3, 2008 filing 
at 26, Comments of Interested LDCs, http://www.naesb.org/pdf3/wgq_060308ldc.pdf).
    \24\ For example, we do not know the costs to the pipelines and 
practical implications to shippers or others of creating more 
numerous intra-day nomination opportunities or adding a late 
nomination period well after normal business hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    23. NGSA supports the Commission's proposal to not impose a generic 
change to the intra-day nomination timeline of all pipelines.\25\ NJN/
PSEG also supports the Commission's decision to not adopt any changes 
to its current regulations and policies regarding intra-day 
nominations. These commenters note that the lack of consensus among 
NAESB participants only underscores the concerns the gas industry has 
with proposed changes to the current NAESB gas nomination timeline.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NGSA Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at 3.
    \26\ NJN/PSEG Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. By contrast, TVA disagrees with the Commission's proposal to 
maintain the status quo regarding intra day nomination regulations. TVA 
states that, due to an ever increasing amount of renewable resources 
and their intermittent nature, it is crucial for the electric and gas 
industry to coincide their scheduled loads in order to maintain both 
flexibility and reliability.\27\ TVA urges the Commission to postpone 
this ruling until more information is gathered on this issue \28\ and 
requests that a technical conference be convened to on this matter.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ TVA Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at 2.
    \28\ Id. at 1.
    \29\ TVA at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. APS also states that maintaining the status quo is not an 
option, and that the NAESB gas nomination timeline must be modified. It 
further states that the only proposal that currently accomplishes 
objectives such as pipeline infrastructure development, greater access 
to firm capacity, enhanced reliability, and reduced risk for shippers 
is the APS/TVA proposal. It states that absent approval of the APS/TVA 
proposal, NAESB cannot make further progress without policy guidance 
from the Commission on the issues of: (1) Whether the no bump rule, in 
its entirety, should be eliminated; and/or (2) if the no bump rule is 
maintained, what is the minimum amount of hours that interruptible 
service should be guaranteed to flow, and does the minimum amount of 
flow have to be as a result of the last cycle of the day.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ APS Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. NGSA urges the Commission to deny the request of TVA and others 
to schedule a technical conference on the issue of intraday pipeline 
nomination schedules. In this regard, NGSA asserts that NAESB had an 
extensive and open process to consider the various proposed 
modifications to the timelines. In the end, no consensus approach was 
approved. However, despite the significant NAESB efforts, parties are 
now asking for a technical conference. In NGSA's view, such a 
conference would be unnecessary and redundant,\31\ and the Commission 
should adhere to its proposal. NGSA concludes that no compelling reason 
has been shown why the Commission should not accept the comprehensive 
NAESB process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ NGSA Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    27. The comments on this issue reveal the same kinds of 
disagreements that surfaced in the NAESB process, and we

[[Page 16341]]

still do not see that any nationwide scheduling solution is superior to 
the balance between firm and interruptible service created by the 
existing standards. Having a last No-bump nomination opportunity 
provides necessary stability to the nomination system by ensuring that 
interruptible shippers can be bumped only at the Intra-Day I nomination 
cycle during the business day and so will have an opportunity to 
reschedule their gas. Furthermore, some electric generators rely on 
interruptible transportation of natural gas to supply fuel; changing 
the intra-day nomination rules would not constitute an improvement in 
gas-electric coordination. Moreover, because these nationwide standards 
cover four time zones, and already extends to 10 p.m. East Coast time, 
we do not believe that extending the No-bump cycle even later in the 
night is a reasonable alternative. As we stated in the NOPR, individual 
pipelines may be able to offer special services or increased nomination 
opportunities that will better fit the profile of gas fired generation. 
Given the extensive comments during the NAESB process, and those filed 
here, we see little benefit from holding a technical conference on this 
issue.
b. Gas Quality Posting
Background
    28. NAESB modified Gas Quality Standards Nos. 4.3.90 and 4.3.92 and 
also added a new gas quality standard. However, NAESB reported that two 
proposed gas quality standards failed to pass as a result of a single 
segment failing to approve the standard. One of the blocked standards 
would have required a pipeline that currently does not post a Wobbe 
number \32\ to post gas quality information on its Web site and to 
calculate and post a Wobbe number when notified by a Service Requestor 
of its desire to begin discussing the interchangeability of gas 
supplies. The other blocked standard would have added to an existing 
requirement that pipelines post and permit downloads of three months of 
historical gas quality data by requiring that the pipelines permit the 
download of gas quality information for a date range specified by the 
party seeking to download the information. The Commission proposed to 
take no action on these blocked standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Wobbe number or Wobbe index is named after Goffredo 
Wobbe, an Italian physicist who developed a formula to compare the 
characteristics of two gasses. The Wobbe index is a measure of the 
physical combustion characteristics of natural gas used in the 
natural gas industry to ensure that natural gas from different 
sources is compatible with gas-burning equipment in a particular 
service area. See Williams, Technical Background and Issues of Gas 
Interchangeability, 27 (AGA Staff Paper, 2006) (http://www.aga.org/NR/rdonlyres/C9D9FB1D-E244-4B9D-9C67-5FA74C24A8E0/0/0604GASINTERCHANGEABILITYSTAFFPAPER.pdf.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    29. AGA notes that, in the November 2009 NOPR, the Commission did 
not propose to require the incorporation of standards regarding the 
posting of gas quality information. AGA urges the Commission to 
reconsider, and argues that, when there is strong support within four 
industry segments for a proposed NAESB standard, but a single segment 
blocks the initiative, such a proposal cannot be fairly characterized 
as lacking support.\33\ AGA also argues that the Commission should take 
a closer look at the standards and make a determination on the merits 
as to whether the benefits achieved by the transparency of gas quality 
information and the efficiency associated with the standardized 
practices as to posting the information would outweigh the burden of 
the incorporation of such standards.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ AGA Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-036) at 6.
    \34\ Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. AGA maintains that the standard requiring pipelines to 
calculate the Wobbe number is consistent with the Commission's reliance 
on the Natural Gas Council's White Paper on Natural Gas 
Interchangeability and Non-Combustion End Uses.\35\ AGA contends that 
the White Paper concluded that ``the Wobbe Number provides the most 
efficient and robust single index and measure of gas 
interchangeability,'' and AGA argues shippers have a critical need for 
the Wobbe number. AGA also argues that the blocked posting standard 
would allow shippers to obtain information based on a given date range 
which will allow shippers to compare gas quality information over 
different periods of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The White Paper on Gas Interchangeability was developed by 
a consortium of parties, including pipelines, LNG suppliers, 
utilities, power generators, and other end users of natural gas, and 
discusses issues and makes recommendations with respect to natural 
gas quality and interchangeability. http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/indus-act/issues/gas-qual/natural-gas-inter.pdf. On June 15, 
2006, the Commission issued a Policy Statement relating to natural 
gas quality. Natural Gas Interchangeability, 115 FERC ] 61,325 
(2006), reh'g denied, 126 FERC ] 61,210 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. AGA also recommends that the Commission consider the merits of 
posting historical gas quality information based on a given date range 
so that shippers could compare gas quality information over different 
periods rather than the NAESB standard which require information by 
location for a three month period.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    32. In the past, the Commission has resolved disputes at NAESB, and 
adopted our own standards, when we find that the standards are 
sufficiently important to warrant such intervention.\37\ We have 
examined the substance of these gas quality standards, as we noted in 
the NOPR, and we have reached the conclusion that these particular 
standards do not warrant such intervention. AGA has not provided 
convincing reasons that these standards are as important to the 
operation of the pipeline grid as the standards on which the Commission 
intervened in the past or that the benefits of these standards outweigh 
the burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Order No. 587-G, 63 FR 20072 (Apr. 23, 1998), FERC 
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,062 (adopting Commission regulations regarding 
priority between firm and interruptible service, operational 
balancing agreements, and imbalance netting and trading).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. The Commission does not currently require pipelines to use the 
Wobbe number in calculating gas quality. It is not clear, and AGA has 
not demonstrated, that a widespread need to compare gas quality across 
pipelines exists, that all pipelines actually collect information that 
permit them to calculate a Wobbe number, that the best or only way to 
make such a comparison is using the Wobbe number, or that the few 
shippers with a need for such a comparison cannot reasonably make 
comparisons based on existing information. We therefore see 
insufficient justification for imposing a burden on pipelines to 
calculate a Wobbe number when the Wobbe number has no significance to 
their systems.
    34. With respect to the blocked standard regarding downloading, the 
existing NAESB standards, 4.3.90, 4.3.91, and 4.3.92, already require 
pipelines to provide a downloadable file, with a standardized file 
format, of gas quality information for each identified location for a 
three month period. Since the data are available, we see no need for 
Commission intervention to determine a download functionality that is 
more efficient for all pipelines, particularly given the large 
disparities in the quantity of data provided by different pipelines. 
Moreover, because pipelines' gas quality requirements differ markedly, 
some issues regarding gas quality, including the use of the Wobbe 
number and individual posting requirements keyed

[[Page 16342]]

to the specific gas quality conditions on a pipeline can be better 
addressed in individual Commission proceedings involving gas quality 
when relevant.

III. Implementation Schedule and Procedures

    35. In their comments on the July NOPR, AGA, NJN/PSEG, and NGSA 
support prompt implementation of the index based capacity release 
standard and the standards providing greater flexibility for using 
alternate receipt and delivery points so that shippers can benefit from 
the enhanced flexibility and improved efficiency that the standards 
provide.\38\ INGAA urges the Commission to defer requiring 
implementation of the index based capacity release standards and 
receipt and delivery point standards until after the Commission 
completes its consideration of NAESB WGQ Standards Version 1.9, so that 
pipelines can implement these standards once.\39\ El Paso urges the 
Commission to implement the index-based capacity release and flexible 
delivery and receipt point standards six months after the effective 
date of the Version 1.9 Standards.\40\ TVA also argues that the 
Commission should postpone deciding on the proposals in the July 2009 
NOPR due to the fact that NAESB will file the WGQ Version 1.9 Standards 
in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ AGA Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at 2-3, Reply Comments 
at 1-7; NJN/PSEG Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at n.2; NGSA 
Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at 3.
    \39\ INGAA Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-030) at 1, Answer at 2-3.
    \40\ El Paso Comments (Docket No. RM96-1-036) at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    36. We have sought reasonably to balance the interests of the 
parties by acting quickly on the November 2009 NOPR and adopting 
Version 1.9 of the standards. This will ensure that shippers can 
utilize the flexibility provided by the index based releases and the 
improved point right authority, but at the same time resolves the 
pipelines' concerns by minimizing their costs through a single 
implementation. In addition, we are directing the filing of tariff 
sheets at a time that coordinates with the filing by natural gas 
pipelines and processing by the Commission of the pipelines' electronic 
tariff filings.
    37. Thus, we will require natural gas pipelines to file tariff 
sheets to reflect the changed standards on September 1, 2010, to take 
effect on November 1, 2010, and will require implementation of these 
standards by November 1, 2010. Pipelines incorporating the Version 1.9 
standards into their tariffs must include the standard number and 
Version 1.9 designation.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Please see the attached Appendix B, which shows the 
preferred and recommended format for submitting tariff sheets that 
would incorporate the NAESB Version 1.9 gas standards by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. In addition, we have noticed that pipelines propose to 
incorporate the NAESB standards in a variety of non-standard ways. For 
example, pipelines often file to renew requests for waivers or 
extensions of time with respect to particular standards without 
providing a citation to the order or notice in which the initial waiver 
or extension was granted. As a result, both Commission staff and the 
public have difficulty reviewing the compliance filings.
    39. To ease the burden of compliance review, we therefore will 
specify certain format requirements applicable to the compliance 
filings. Pipelines must include in their transmittal letter a table of 
all the NAESB standards incorporated by reference and a cross-reference 
to the tariff provision (whether revised or not) in which that standard 
is contained. For standards that are not incorporated by reference, the 
pipelines also should identify the tariff provision that complies with 
that standard.\42\ Where applicable, pipelines shall also include a 
table of prior standards for which waivers or extensions of time were 
granted along with citations to the relevant orders or notices granting 
those waivers or extensions of time. In addition, we have included as 
Appendix B an example of a recommended tariff provision for 
incorporation of the NAESB standards by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ We note that Standards 1.3.2 and 5.3.2 should be included 
in the pipelines' tariffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

    40. In section 12(d) of NTT&AA, Congress affirmatively requires 
Federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary 
consensus standards organizations, like NAESB, as the means to carry 
out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies unless 
use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical.\43\ NAESB approved the standards under its 
consensus procedures. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 
(Sec.  11) (February 10, 1998) provides that Federal agencies should 
publish a request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to 
issue or revise a regulation proposing to adopt a voluntary consensus 
standard or a government-unique standard. On July 16, 2009, the 
Commission issued a NOPR proposing to incorporate by reference NAESB's 
standards governing Index-Based Capacity Release and Flexible Delivery 
and Receipt Points and on November 19, 2009, the Commission issued a 
NOPR that proposed to incorporate by reference NAESB's Version 1.9 
Standards, which included the standards on Index-Based Capacity Release 
and Flexible Delivery and Receipt Points. The Commission took the 
comments on these two NOPRs into account in fashioning this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra, n.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Information Collection Statement

    41. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations in 5 
CFR 1320.11 require that it approve certain reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements (collections of information) imposed by an agency. Upon 
approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control 
number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing 
requirements of this Final Rule will not be penalized for failing to 
respond to these collections of information unless the collections of 
information display a valid OMB control number.
    42. This Final Rule upgrades the Commission's current business 
practice and communication standards to the latest edition approved by 
the NAESB WGQ (i.e., the Version 1.9 Standards).
    43. The implementation of these standards is necessary to increase 
the efficiency of the pipeline grid, make pipelines' electronic 
communications more secure, and is consistent with the mandate that 
agencies provide for electronic disclosure of information. Requiring 
such information ensures a common means of communication and ensures 
common business practices that provide participants engaged in 
transactions with interstate pipelines with timely information and 
uniform business procedures across multiple pipelines.
    44. The following burden estimates include the costs to implement 
the WGQ's revised business practice standards and communication 
protocols for interstate natural gas pipelines. The implementation of 
these data requirements will help the Commission carry out its 
responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act of promoting the efficiency 
and reliability of the natural gas industry's operations. In addition, 
the Commission's Office of Energy Market Regulation will use the data 
for general industry oversight.
    45. The Commission sought comments on the Commission's estimate 
provided in the NOPR of the

[[Page 16343]]

burden associated with adoption of the NOPR proposals. In response to 
the NOPR, no comments were filed that addressed the reporting burden 
imposed by these requirements. Therefore the Commission will use these 
same estimates in this Final Rule, with the sole exception that, based 
on more recent information, we are updating our estimate of the number 
of respondents (from 168 to 130).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number of
             Data collection                  Number of       responses per       Hours per      Total number of
                                             respondents       respondent         response            hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-549C...............................               130                 1                22             2,860
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................  ................  ................  ................             2,860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Annual Hours for Collection
    (Reporting and Recordkeeping, (if appropriate)) = 2,860.
    46. Information Collection Costs: The Commission sought comments on 
the costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the 
average annualized cost for all respondents to be the following: \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The total annualized cost for the information collection is 
$429,000. This number is reached by multiplying the total hours to 
prepare a response (hours) by an hourly wage estimate of $150 (a 
composite estimate that includes legal, technical, and support staff 
rates). $429,000= $150 x 2,860.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              FERC-549C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Capital/Startup Costs...........................     $429,000
Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance)................          N/A
                                                            ------------
    Total Annualized Costs.................................      429,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. OMB regulations \45\ require OMB to approve certain information 
collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is 
submitting notification of this Final Rule to OMB. These information 
collections are mandatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-549C, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate 
Natural Gas Pipelines.
    Action: Information collection.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0174.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, (Interstate natural gas 
pipelines (Not applicable to small business)).
    Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business 
procedures, capital/start-up).
    Necessity of Information: The Commission's regulations adopted in 
this rule upgrade the Commission's current business practices and 
communication standards in response to the Commission's determinations 
in Order Nos. 682, 698, 698-A, 712, and 717, and would: revise 
standards allowing index-based pricing for capacity release 
transactions and allow for increased receipt and delivery point 
flexibility through the use of redirects of scheduled quantities; 
create information posting requirements for Web sites and browsers; 
require the posting of gas quality information including posting and 
format requirements; report hydrocarbon liquid drop out measurements; 
and create standards to reflect changes in the use of software used on 
the Internet.
    48. The implementation of these data requirements will increase the 
efficiency of the capacity release market and the ability to schedule 
gas around constraints, will be reported directly to the industry users 
and will provide additional transparency to informational posting Web 
sites. It also will improve gas quality measurements and will improve 
communication standards. The implementation of these standards and 
regulations will promote the additional efficiency and reliability of 
the gas industries' operations thereby helping the Commission to carry 
out its responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act of promoting the 
efficiency and reliability of the gas industries' operations. In 
addition, the Commission's Office of Energy Market and Regulation will 
use the data in rate proceedings to review rate and tariff changes by 
natural gas companies for the transportation of gas, for general 
industry oversight, and to supplement the documentation used during the 
Commission's audit process.
    49. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements 
pertaining to business practices and electronic communication with 
interstate natural gas pipelines and has made a determination that 
these revisions are necessary to establish a more efficient and 
integrated pipeline grid. These requirements conform to the 
Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication, 
and management within the natural gas industry. The Commission has 
assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is 
specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with 
the information requirements.
    50. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Attn: 
Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street, 
NE., Washington, DC 20426 Tel: (202) 502-8415, Fax: (202) 273-0873, E-
mail: [email protected] or by contacting: Office of Management 
and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, 
DC 20503 (Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-7285).

VI. Environmental Analysis

    51. 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.\46\ The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these 
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment.\47\ The actions adopted 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 and electric power that requires no 
construction of facilities. Therefore, an environmental assessment is 
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Order No. 486, Regulation Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & 
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \47\ 18 CFR 380.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    52. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \48\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In drafting a rule an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that 
its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective 
alternatives that

[[Page 16344]]

may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available 
for public comment.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \49\ 5 U.S.C. 601-604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. The regulations we are adopting in this Final Rule impose 
requirements only on interstate pipelines, the majority of which are 
not small businesses. In this regard, we note that, under the industry 
standards used for the RFA, a natural gas pipeline company qualifies as 
a ``small entity'' if it had annual receipts of less than $7 
million.\50\ Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall 
within the RFA's definition of a small entity. Approximately 130 
entities would be potential respondents subject to data collection 
FERC-549C reporting requirements. Nearly all of these entities are 
large entities. For the year 2007 (the most recent year for which 
information is available), only four companies not affiliated with 
larger companies had annual revenues of less than $7 million, which is 
about three percent of the total universe of potential respondents. 
Moreover, these requirements are designed to benefit all customers, 
including small businesses. As noted above, adoption of consensus 
standards helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by requiring 
that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of industry 
participants representing all segments of the industry. Because of that 
representation and the fact that industry conducts business under these 
standards, the Commission's regulations should reflect those standards 
that have the widest possible support.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small 
Business Size Standards, http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf (effective July 31, 
2006).\50\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing section 3 of the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 623. Section 3 of the SBA defines a ``small business 
concern'' as a business which is independently owned and operated 
and which is not dominant in its field of operation. The Small 
Business Size Standards component of the North American Industry 
Classification System defines a small natural gas pipeline company 
as one that transports natural gas and whose annual receipts (total 
income plus cost of goods sold) less than $7 million for the 
previous year.
    \51\ As we stated in Standards for Business Practices of 
Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587-C, FERC Stats. & 
Regs. ] 31,050, at 30,588 (1997), pipelines may file requests 
seeking waiver or extension of the requirements of this rule, but 
must file such requests within 30 days of the issuance of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. 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.

VIII. Document Availability

    55. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's 
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    56. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is 
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on 
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or 
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket 
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket 
number field.
    57. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web 
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at 
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202)502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 
[email protected].

IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    58. These regulations are effective May 3, 2010. The Commission has 
determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

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

    By the Commission.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
* * * * *

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 284, 
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

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

* * * * *
0
1. The authority citation for part 284 continues to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

0
2. Section 284.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through 
(a)(1)(vii), and (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  284.12  Standards for pipeline business operations and 
communications.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Additional Standards (General Standards, Creditworthiness
    Standards and Gas/Electric Operational Communications Standards) 
(Version 1.9, September 30, 2009);
    (ii) Nominations Related Standards (Version 1.9, September 30, 
2009);
    (iii) Flowing Gas Related Standards (Version 1.9, September 30, 
2009);
    (iv) Invoicing Related Standards (Version 1.9, September 30, 2009);
    (v) Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards 
(Version 1.9, September 30, 2009) with the exception of Standard 4.3.4;
    (vi) Capacity Release Related Standards (Version 1.9, September 30, 
2009); and
    (vii) Internet Electronic Transport Related Standards (Version 1.9, 
September 30, 2009) with the exception of Standard 10.3.2.
    (2) This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 
51. Copies of these standards may be obtained from the North American 
Energy Standards Board, 801 Travis Street, Suite 1675, Houston, TX 
77002, Phone: (713) 356-0060. NAESB's Web site is at http://www.naesb.org/. Copies may be inspected at the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Phone: (202) 502-8371, 
http://www.ferc.gov, or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/Federal_register/code_of_Federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
* * * * *

Appendix A

    Note:  The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.


[[Page 16345]]



List of Commenters \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The abbreviations used to refer to these commenters in this 
Final Rule are shown parenthetically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Gas Association (AGA) filed comments in Docket Nos. RM96-1-
030 and RM96-1-036 and reply comments in Docket No. RM96-1-030.
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) filed comments in Docket No. 
RM96-1-030.
Carolina Gas Transmission Company (Carolina) filed comments in 
Docket Nos. RM96-1-030 and RM96-1-036.
El Paso Corporation (El Paso) filed comments in Docket No. RM96-1-
036.
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) filed comments 
and an answer in Docket No. RM96-1-030.
Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) filed comments in Docket No. 
RM96-1-030 (late filed).
New Jersey Natural Gas Company & PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC 
(NJN/PSEG) filed comments in Docket No. RM96-1-030.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) filed comments in Docket No. RM96-
1-030.

Appendix B

    Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Recommended Tariff Provision

General Terms and Conditions

Compliance with 18 CFR, Section 284.12

    Transporter has adopted all of the Business Practices and 
Electronic Communications Standards which are required by the 
Commission in 18 CFR, Section 284.12(a), as amended from time to 
time, in accordance with Order No. 587, et al. In addition to the 
NAESB WGQ Standards referenced elsewhere in the Tariff, Transporter 
specifically incorporates by reference the following NAESB WGQ 
Version 1.9 Standards, Definitions, and Data Sets, by reference:

Additional Standards:
General:
    Principles (Optional): 0.1.1, 0.1.2, 0.1.3
    Standards: 0.3.1, 0.3.2, 0.3.16, 0.3.17

Creditworthiness:
    Standards: 0.3.3, 0.3.4, 0.3.5, 0.3.6, 0.3.7, 0.3.8, 0.3.9, 
0.3.10

Gas/Electric Operational Communications:
    Definitions: 0.2.1, 0.2.2, 0.2.3
    Standards: 0.3.11, 0.3.12, 0.3.13, 0.3.14, 0.3.15

Storage Information:
    Data Sets: 0.4.1

Nominations Related Standards:
    Principles (Optional): 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.7, 
1.1.9, 1.1.10, 1.1.11, 1.1.12, 1.1.13, 1.1.14, 1.1.15, 1.1.16, 
1.1.17, 1.1.18, 1.1.20, 1.1.21, 1.1.22
    Definitions: 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.8, 
1.2.9, 1.2.10, 1.2.11, 1.2.12, 1.2.13, 1.2.14, 1.2.15, 1.2.16, 
1.2.17, 1.2.18, 1.2.19
    Standards: 1.3.1, 1.3.2(vi), 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 
1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.3.11, 1.3.13, 1.3.14, 1.3.15, 1.3.16, 1.3.17, 
1.3.18, 1.3.19, 1.3.20, 1.3.21, 1.3.22, 1.3.23, 1.3.24, 1.3.25, 
1.3.26, 1.3.27, 1.3.28, 1.3.29, 1.3.30, 1.3.31, 1.3.32, 1.3.33, 
1.3.34, 1.3.35, 1.3.36, 1.3.37, 1.3.38, 1.3.39, 1.3.40, 1.3.41, 
1.3.42, 1.3.43, 1.3.44, 1.3.45, 1.3.46, 1.3.47, 1.3.48, 1.3.49, 
1.3.50, 1.3.51, 1.3.52, 1.3.53, 1.3.54, 1.3.55, 1.3.56, 1.3.57, 
1.3.58, 1.3.59, 1.3.60, 1.3.61, 1.3.62, 1.3.63, 1.3.64, 1.3.65, 
1.3.66, 1.3.67, 1.3.68, 1.3.69, 1.3.70, 1.3.71, 1.3.72, 1.3.73, 
1.3.74, 1.3.75, 1.3.76, 1.3.77, 1.3.79, 1.3.80
    Data Sets: 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4, 1.4.5, 1.4.6, 1.4.7

Flowing Gas Related Standards:
    Principles (Optional): 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6
    Definitions: 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5
    Standards: 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 2.3.7, 
2.3.8, 2.3.9, 2.3.10, 2.3.11, 2.3.12, 2.3.13, 2.3.14, 2.3.15, 
2.3.16, 2.3.17, 2.3.18, 2.3.19, 2.3.20, 2.3.21, 2.3.22, 2.3.23, 
2.3.25, 2.3.26, 2.3.27, 2.3.28, 2.3.29, 2.3.30, 2.3.31, 2.3.32, 
2.3.33, 2.3.34, 2.3.35, 2.3.40, 2.3.41, 2.3.42, 2.3.43, 2.3.44, 
2.3.45, 2.3.46, 2.3.47, 2.3.48, 2.3.49, 2.3.50, 2.3.51, 2.3.52, 
2.3.53, 2.3.54, 2.3.55, 2.3.56, 2.3.57, 2.3.58, 2.3.59, 2.3.60, 
2.3.61, 2.3.62, 2.3.63, 2.3.64, 2.3.65
    Data Sets: 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.7, 
2.4.8, 2.4.9, 2.4.10, 2.4.11, 2.4.12, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, 2.4.15, 
2.4.16, 2.4.17, 2.4.18

Invoicing Related Standards:
    Principles (Optional): 3.1.1, 3.1.2
    Definition: 3.2.1
    Standards: 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 
3.3.8, 3.3.9, 3.3.10, 3.3.11, 3.3.12, 3.3.13, 3.3.14, 3.3.15, 
3.3.16, 3.3.17, 3.3.18, 3.3.19, 3.3.20, 3.3.21, 3.3.22, 3.3.23, 
3.3.24, 3.3.25, 3.3.26
    Data Sets: 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4

Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards:
    Principles (Optional): 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 
4.1.10, 4.1.12, 4.1.13, 4.1.15, 4.1.16, 4.1.17, 4.1.18, 4.1.19, 
4.1.20, 4.1.21, 4.1.22, 4.1.23, 4.1.24, 4.1.26, 4.1.27, 4.1.28, 
4.1.29, 4.1.30, 4.1.31, 4.1.32, 4.1.33, 4.1.34, 4.1.35, 4.1.36, 
4.1.37, 4.1.38, 4.1.39, 4.1.40
    Definitions: 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.2.7, 
4.2.8, 4.2.9, 4.2.10, 4.2.11, 4.2.12, 4.2.13, 4.2.14, 4.2.15, 
4.2.16, 4.2.17, 4.2.18, 4.2.19, 4.2.20
    Standards: 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.16, 4.3.17, 4.3.18, 
4.3.20, 4.3.22, 4.3.23, 4.3.24, 4.3.25, 4.3.26, 4.3.27, 4.3.28, 
4.3.29, 4.3.30, 4.3.31, 4.3.32, 4.3.33, 4.3.34, 4.3.35, 4.3.36, 
4.3.38, 4.3.39, 4.3.40, 4.3.41, 4.3.42, 4.3.43, 4.3.44, 4.3.45, 
4.3.46, 4.3.47, 4.3.48, 4.3.49, 4.3.50, 4.3.51, 4.3.52, 4.3.53, 
4.3.54, 4.3.55, 4.3.56, 4.3.57, 4.3.58, 4.3.59, 4.3.60, 4.3.61, 
4.3.62, 4.3.65, 4.3.66, 4.3.67, 4.3.68, 4.3.69, 4.3.72, 4.3.73, 
4.3.74, 4.3.75, 4.3.76, 4.3.78, 4.3.79, 4.3.80, 4.3.81, 4.3.82, 
4.3.83, 4.3.84, 4.3.85, 4.3.86, 4.3.87, 4.3.89, 4.3.90, 4.3.91, 
4.3.92, 4.3.93, 4.3.94, 4.3.95, 4.3.96, 4.3.97, 4.3.98, 4.3.99

Capacity Release Standards:
    Principles (Optional): 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4
    Definitions: 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.5
    Standards: 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.3.7, 5.3.8, 5.3.9, 
5.3.10, 5.3.11, 5.3.12, 5.3.13, 5.3.14, 5.3.15, 5.3.16, 5.3.17, 
5.3.18, 5.3.19, 5.3.20, 5.3.21, 5.3.22, 5.3.23, 5.3.24, 5.3.25, 
5.3.26, 5.3.27, 5.3.28, 5.3.29, 5.3.30, 5.3.31, 5.3.32, 5.3.33, 
5.3.34, 5.3.35, 5.3.36, 5.3.37, 5.3.38, 5.3.39, 5.3.40, 5.3.41, 
5.3.42, 5.3.43, 5.3.44, 5.3.45, 5.3.46, 5.3.47, 5.3.48, 5.3.49, 
5.3.50, 5.3.51, 5.3.52, 5.3.53, 5.3.54, 5.3.55, 5.3.56, 5.3.57, 
5.3.58, 5.3.59, 5.3.60, 5.3.61, 5.3.62, 5.3.62a, 5.3.63, 5.3.64, 
5.3.65, 5.3.66, 5.3.67, 5.3.68, 5.3.69
    Data Sets: 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.4.4, 5.4.5, 5.4.6, 5.4.7, 
5.4.8, 5.4.9, 5.4.10, 5.4.11, 5.4.12, 5.4.13, 5.4.14, 5.4.15, 
5.4.16, 5.4.17, 5.4.18, 5.4.19, 5.4.20, 5.4.21, 5.4.22, 5.4.23

Internet Electronic Transport Related Standards:
    Principles (Optional): 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.2.3, 10.2.4, 10.2.5, 
10.2.6, 10.2.7, 10.2.8, 10.1.9, 10.1.10
    Definitions: 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.2.4, 10.2.5, 10.2.6, 
10.2.7, 10.2.8, 10.2.9, 10.2.10, 10.2.11, 10.2.12, 10.2.13, 10.2.14, 
10.2.15, 10.2.16, 10.2.17, 10.2.18, 10.2.19, 10.2.20, 10.2.21, 
10.2.22, 10.2.23, 10.2.24, 10.2.25, 10.2.26, 10.2.27, 10.2.28, 
10.2.29, 10.2.30, 10.2.31, 10.2.32, 10.2.33, 10.2.34, 10.2.35, 
10.2.36, 10.2.37, 10.2.38
    Standards: 10.3.1, 10.3.3, 10.3.4, 10.3.5, 10.3.6, 10.3.7, 
10.3.8, 10.3.9, 10.3.10, 10.3.11, 10.3.12, 10.3.14, 10.3.15, 
10.3.16, 10.3.17, 10.3.18, 10.3.19, 10.3.20, 10.3.21, 10.3.22, 
10.3.23, 10.3.24, 10.3.25, 10.3.26, 10.3.27

[FR Doc. 2010-6976 Filed 3-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P