140 FERC ¶ 61,036 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 284 

[Docket No. RM96-1-037; Order No. 587-V] 

Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines 

(Issued July 19, 2012) 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission) amends its regulations to incorporate by reference the latest version 

(Version 2.0) of certain business practice standards adopted by the Wholesale Gas 

Quadrant (WGQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) applicable to 

natural gas pipelines. In addition, based on the minor corrections and errata made by 

NAESB and reported to the Commission on May 4, 2012, the Commission will 

incorporate by reference certain standards that it earlier proposed not to incorporate, as 

the revised standards no longer conflict with Commission regulations. In this Final Rule, 

the Commission also provides guidance on the criteria the Commission will use in 

deciding whether to grant or deny requests for waivers or extensions of time and modifies 

the compliance filing requirements to add transparency as to where in the tariff 

incorporated standards may be found. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 2 - 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective [insert date 30 days after 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. The incorporation by reference of certain 

publications in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [insert 

date 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Bednarczyk (technical issues) 

Office of Energy Market Regulation 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-6444, E-mail: Adam.Bednarczyk@ferc.gov

Tony Dobbins (technical issues) 

Office of Energy Policy and Innovation 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-6630, E-mail: Tony.Dobbins@ferc.gov 

Gary D. Cohen (legal issues) 

Office of the General Counsel 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8321, E-mail: Gary.Cohen@ferc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural 

Gas Pipelines 

Docket No. RM96-1-037 

ORDER NO. 587-V 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Numbers

I. Background ............................................................................................................................2.

II. Discussion.............................................................................................................................11.

A. Incorporation by Reference of the NAESB Standards ....................................................11.

B. Incorporation of Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21 ..................................................................17.

C. Other Standards Issues Raised by Commenters...............................................................21.

1. Gas-Electric Communication Standards.......................................................................21.

2. Interpretations of NAESB WGQ Standards .................................................................27.

3. Definition of Operating Capacity ................................................................................29.

III. Implementation Schedule and Procedures for Waivers and Extension of Time.................31.

A. Implementation Schedule.................................................................................................33.

B. Waivers and Extensions of Time......................................................................................38.

C. Comments on Implementation and Waiver Policy ..........................................................40.

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards ..............................................................42.

V. Information Collection Statement ........................................................................................43.

VI. Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................................50.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act .................................................................................................51.

VIII. Document Availability .....................................................................................................55.

IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification...................................................................58.
140 FERC ¶ 61,036 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; 

 Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris, 

 Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony T. Clark. 

Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural 

Gas Pipelines 

 Docket No. RM96-1-037 

ORDER NO. 587-V 

FINAL RULE 

(Issued July 19, 2012) 

1. In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 

amends its regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 to incorporate by reference the latest version 

(Version 2.0) of certain business practice standards adopted by the Wholesale Gas 

Quadrant (WGQ) of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) applicable to 

natural gas pipelines including Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21 as modified by the minor 

corrections and errata approved by NAESB. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,1

 the 

Commission proposed not to incorporate Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21 because these 

standards conflicted with Commission regulations. NAESB’s minor corrections ensure 

consistency between the standards and the Commission regulations and the Commission 

 1 Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 77 FR 10415 (Feb. 22, 2012), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,686 

(2012) (Version 2.0 NOPR). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 2 - 

will therefore incorporate the standards by reference. In this Final Rule, the Commission 

also provides guidance on the criteria the Commission will use in deciding whether to 

grant or deny requests for waivers or extensions of time and modifies the compliance 

filing requirements to add transparency as to where in the tariff incorporated standards 

may be found. 

I. Background

2. Since 1996, the Commission has adopted regulations to standardize the business 

practices and communication methodologies of interstate natural gas pipelines to create a 

more integrated and efficient pipeline grid. These regulations have been promulgated in 

the Order No. 587 series of orders,2

 wherein the Commission has incorporated by 

reference standards for interstate natural gas pipeline business practices and electronic 

communications that were developed and adopted by NAESB’s WGQ. Upon 

incorporation by reference, the Version 2.0 Standards will become part of the 

Commission’s regulations and compliance with these standards by interstate natural gas 

pipelines will become mandatory. 

3. On March 4, 2011, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission that it had 

adopted and ratified Version 2.0 of its business practice standards applicable to natural 

 2

 This series of orders began with the Commission’s issuance of Standards for 

Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587, FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 31,038 (1996). The most recent order in this series is Order No. 587-U, issued on 

March 24, 2010, wherein the Commission incorporated by reference the Version 1.9 

WGQ Business Practice Standards. Standards for Business Practices of Interstate 

Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587-U, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,307 (2010). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 3 - 

gas pipelines. The Version 2.0 Standards revised the Version 1.9 Standards to include: 

(1) standards to support gas-electric interdependency; (2) standards created for Capacity 

Release redesign due to the elimination of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) for 

Capacity Release Upload information; (3) standards to support the Electronic Delivery 

Mechanism (EDM); (4) standards to support the Customer Security Administration 

(CSA) Process; (5) standards for pipeline postings of information regarding waste heat; 

and (6) minor technical maintenance revisions designed to more efficiently process 

wholesale natural gas transactions. 

4. On June 28, 2011, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission that it had 

made modifications to the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards to correct various minor 

errors. These errata corrections make minor revisions to the NAESB WGQ Standards 

and Data Elements including revisions to the: (1) Datasets for Additional Standards; 

(2) Nomination Related Datasets; (3) Flowing Gas Related Standards; (4) Invoicing 

Related Datasets; (5) EDM Related Standards; and (6) Capacity Release Related 

Standards and Datasets.

5. Further, on October 11, 2011, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission 

that it had made additional modifications to the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards to 

correct various minor errors in the Nominations Related and Capacity Release Related 

Datasets. 

6. On December 22, 2011, NAESB reported to the Commission that it had made 

additional modifications to the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards to correct various 

minor errors. The errata corrections make minor revisions to the NAESB WGQ 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 4 - 

Standards and Datasets including revisions to the: (1) Nominations Related Datasets; 

(2) Capacity Release Related Datasets; and (3) Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism 

Related Standards.

7. Consistent with its practice in past rulemakings where the Commission found 

benefits in incorporating by reference NAESB’s business practice standards,3

 the 

Commission issued the Version 2.0 NOPR, which proposed to amend the Commission’s 

regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 to incorporate by reference the latest version of certain 

business practice standards adopted by NAESB’s WGQ applicable to natural gas 

pipelines.4

 

(continued...) 

3 See, e.g., Order No. 587, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,038 at 30,059, where the 

Commission found that the 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. The Commission also noted that, because the industry 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 a means to carry out policy objectives or 

activities. These findings remain valid. 

4 See supra n.1. In its Version 2.0 Standards, the WGQ made the following 

changes to its Version 1.9 Standards: 

 It revised Principle 4.1.32; Definitions 0.2.1, 0.2.2, 0.2.3, 5.2.1, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5; 

Standards 0.3.11 through 0.3.15, 2.3.34, 4.3.16, 4.3.23, 4.3.28, 4.3.29, 4.3.54, 

5.3.1 through 5.3.14, 5.3.16, 5.3.19 through 5.3.21, 5.3.24 through 5.3.27, 5.3.31 

through 5.3.33, 5.3.38, 5.3.42, 5.3.48, 5.3.50, 5.3.51, 5.3.60, 5.3.62, 5.3.62a, and 

5.3.63 through 5.3.69; and Datasets 1.4.1 through 1.4.6, 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.6, 

2.4.7, 3.4.1, 3.4.4, 5.4.14 through 5.4.17, and 5.4.20 through 5.4.22. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 5 - 

8. The Version 2.0 NOPR proposed not to incorporate by reference Standard 0.3.19, 

because the Commission found it inconsistent with the requirements of 18 CFR 

284.13(d), which does not permit a pipeline to limit the posting of available capacity to a 

limited number of points, segments, or zones, but requires posting at all receipt and 

delivery points and on the mainline. Additionally, the Version 2.0 NOPR proposed not to 

incorporate by reference Standard 0.3.21, because 18 CFR 284.13(d) does not limit the 

posting of information posting to only two cycles but requires the posting of capacity 

availability and scheduled capacity “whenever capacity is scheduled.” Also, consistent 

with past practice, the Commission proposed not to incorporate Standards 4.3.4 and 

10.3.2 regarding record retention requirements,5

 NAESB's interpretations of its 

standards,6

 its optional contracts,7 and the WEQ/WGQ eTariff Related Standard.8 The 

Commission further provided guidance regarding the procedures for pipelines to 

 

 It added Definition 0.2.4; Standards 0.3.18 through 0.3.22, 4.3.100 through 

4.3.102, 5.3.70 through 5.3.72; and Datasets 0.4.2, 0.4.3, and 5.4.24 through 

5.4.27. 

 It deleted Standards 5.3.17, 5.3.30, 5.3.43, and 5.3.61; and Datasets 5.4.1 through 

5.4.13, 5.4.18, and 5.4.19. 

5 See, e.g., Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 

Final Rule, Order No. 587-T, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,289, at P 5 & n.9 (2009). 

6 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,299, at n.16 (2009). 

7 Id. 

8 See Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,276 

(2008). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 6 - 

incorporate the standards into their tariffs and explained its policy regarding pipeline 

requests for waiver or extension of time to comply with the standards. 

9. In response to the Version 2.0 NOPR, comments were filed by six commenters.9

 

The comments expressed a variety of views, including requests for clarification and 

modification of the Commission’s policy on extensions of time to comply with NAESB 

WGQ Standards. Among the comments filed with the Commission were comments from 

NAESB explaining that its WGQ Executive Committee was in the process of voting on 

two standards to rectify the inconsistency with respect to Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21 

noted by the Commission in the Version 2.0 NOPR. On May 4, 2012, NAESB filed a 

status report informing the Commission that it had finalized the two corrections to 

Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21. 

10. On May 8, 2012, the Commission issued a notice providing interested parties an 

opportunity to file comments with respect to the two corrected standards adopted by 

NAESB and whether the Commission should incorporate these revised standards into its 

regulations.10 In response to this notice, three comments were filed, all of which 

supported the Commission’s incorporation of the revised standards. 

 9

 In the Appendix to this Final Rule, we identify all the commenters that filed 

comments in response to the Version 2.0 NOPR, along with the abbreviations we are 

using in this Final Rule to identify these commenters. 

10 Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 77 FR 

28331 (May 14, 2012). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 7 - 

II. Discussion

A. Incorporation by Reference of the NAESB Standards 

11. After a review of the comments filed in response to the Version 2.0 NOPR, the 

Commission is amending part 284 of its regulations to incorporate by reference Version 

2.0 of the NAESB WGQ's consensus standards, including corrected Standards 0.3.19 and 

0.3.21.11

12. The NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 standards include new and modified business 

practice standards to support gas-electric interdependency by further defining the roles 

and responsibilities of each participant under the Gas/Electric Operational 

Communication Standards promulgated in Order No. 698,12 and giving more details on 

what is included in various notices through the creation of 15 new notice types so that 

public utilities may more easily identify relevant pipelines' system conditions. The new 

notice types are used in the Notices section of pipelines' Informational Postings on their 

websites and are used to notify shippers and interested parties of intraday bumps, 

operational flow orders, and other critical information by email or other electronic 

methods. This increase in granularity will afford pipelines greater flexibility in assigning 

specific designations to the notices and will allow shippers and other interested 

 11 In addition, as discussed in the Version 2.0 NOPR and above, we are not 

incorporating by reference Standards 4.3.4 and 10.3.2, NAESB's interpretation of its 

standards, its optional contracts, or the WEQ/WGQ eTariff Related Standards. 

12 Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines; Standards 

for Business Practices for Public Utilities, Order No. 698, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,251, 

order on clarification and reh'g, Order No. 698-A, 121 FERC ¶ 61,264 (2007). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 8 - 

stakeholders to filter pipeline notices more effectively, so that they can focus on specific 

types of notices they deem important, while ignoring notices they deem irrelevant. 

13. The revised standards also include revisions to facilitate the Commission’s FY 

2009 – 2014 Strategic Plan13 objective of evaluating the feasibility of installing waste 

heat recovery systems as a way to promote the efficient design and operation of 

jurisdictional natural gas facilities by specifying the location where such information will 

be posted on pipelines’ websites. 

14. To implement these standards, natural gas pipelines will be required to file tariff 

sheets to reflect the changed standards by October 1, 2012, to take effect on December 1, 

2012, and they will be required to comply with these standards on and after December 1, 

2012. 

15. NAESB used its consensus procedures to develop and approve the Version 2.0 

Standards.14 As the Commission found in Order No. 587, the 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 

 13 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Strategic Plan, FY 2009 – 2014 at 25. 

http://www.ferc.gov/about/strat-docs/FY-09-14-strat-plan-print.pdf.

14 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. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 9 - 

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 NTT&AA,15 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 an agency determines that the use of such standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical.16

16. The comments on the Version 2.0 NOPR generally supported the adoption of the 

standards. In the discussion below, we will address the issues raised in the comments. 

B. Incorporation of Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21

17. In the Version 2.0 NOPR, the Commission found that two of the proposed 

standards, WGQ Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21, as originally adopted by the WGQ 

appeared to be inconsistent with the Commission’s posting regulations in 18 CFR 

284.13(d).17 For this reason, the Commission proposed in the Version 2.0 NOPR not to 

incorporate these standards by reference. 

 

(continued...) 

15 See n.3 supra. 

16 Pub. L. No. 104-113, § 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15 U.S.C. 272 note (1997). 

17 18 CFR 284.13(d). Section 284.13(d) states in relevant part: 

d) Capacity and flow information. (1) An interstate pipeline 

must provide on its Internet web site and in downloadable file 

formats, in conformity with §284.12 of this part, equal and 

timely access to information relevant to the availability of all 

transportation services whenever capacity is scheduled, 

including, but not limited to, the availability of capacity at 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 10 - 

Filings

18. On May 4, 2012, NAESB filed a status report informing the Commission that it 

had finalized corrections to the two standards, which it believed met the Commission’s 

objections to the original standards.18 In response to the Commission’s notice inviting 

comments on NAESB’s corrections, INGAA, Southern Star, and AGA each filed 

comments expressing support for incorporation by reference of the corrected standards.19

Commission Determination

19. Based on the modifications made by NAESB WGQ, the Commission will 

incorporate by reference the modified standards, as they no longer conflict with the 

Commission’s regulations. As noted in the Version 2.0 NOPR, the original NAESB 

WGQ Version Standard 0.3.19 allowed the pipeline to choose whether to post 

Operationally Available Capacity, Operating Capacity, and Total Scheduled Quantity at 

 

receipt points, on the mainline, at delivery points, and in 

storage fields, whether the capacity is available directly from 

the pipeline or through capacity release, the total design 

capacity of each point or segment on the system, the amount 

scheduled at each point or segment whenever capacity is 

scheduled, and all planned and actual service outages or 

reductions in service capacity. 

18 NAESB corrections MC12005 and MC12006.

19 INGAA Supplemental Comments at 2, Southern Star Supplemental Comments 

at 2, AGA Comments at 2. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 11 - 

either a point, segment or zone level.20 This standard conflicted with section 284.13(d)21

of the regulations that does not permit the pipeline to limit the posting to a point, 

segment, or zone, but requires posting at all receipt and delivery points and on the 

mainline.22 The revised Standard 0.3.1923 removed the provision permitting the pipeline 

to choose the level at which it reports and therefore no longer conflicts with section 

284.13(d)24 of our regulations. 

20. The original NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standard 0.3.21 required the posting of 

total scheduled quantity and operationally available capacity information only at the 

timely and evening nominations cycles.25 Section 284.13(d), however, does not limit 

 

(continued...) 

20 The original NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standard 0.3.19 stated: Operationally 

Available Capacity (OAC), Operating Capacity (OPC) and Total Scheduled Quantity 

(TSQ) are associated information and should be reported at the same level. 

Transportation Service Providers should report OAC, OPC and TSQ at, at least one of, 

point, segment or zone level. 

21 See supra n.17. 

22 Section 284.13(d) states that the pipeline must post “information relevant to the 

availability of all transportation services whenever capacity is scheduled, including, but 

not limited to, the availability of capacity at receipt points, on the mainline, at delivery 

points, and in storage fields.” 

23 The revised Standard reads: Operationally Available Capacity (OAC), 

Operating Capacity (OPC) and Total Scheduled Quantity (TSQ) are associated 

information and should be reported at the same level of detail.” 

24 See supra n.17. 

25 The original NAESB WGQ Standard 0.3.21 states: The Total Scheduled 

Quantity and the Operationally Available Capacity information should be updated by the 

Transportation Service Provider to reflect scheduling changes and be reported promptly 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 12 - 

the posting to only two cycles but requires the posting of capacity availability and 

scheduled capacity “whenever capacity is scheduled.” Revised Standard 0.3.21 

provides, consistent with the regulation, that the required information “should be 

updated by the Transportation Service Provider to reflect scheduling changes and be 

reported promptly whenever capacity is scheduled.” 

C. Other Standards Issues Raised by Commenters

1. Gas-Electric Communication Standards

21. The Commission incorporated by reference the NAESB Wholesale Electric 

Quadrant (WEQ) and WGQ Gas/Electric Coordination Standards in Order Nos. 698 and 

698-A26 to ensure that pipelines have relevant planning information to assist in 

maintaining the operational integrity and reliability of pipeline service, as well as to 

provide gas-fired power plant operators with information as to whether hourly flow 

deviations can be honored.27 In the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards, NAESB 

modified and developed additional standards to further enhance that coordination. 

NAESB made modifications to its WGQ Standards 4.3.28, 4.3.29 and 5.3.38 and 

developed new Standards 5.3.70 and 5.3.71 to enhance the clarity of the content and 

format of critical, non-critical, and planned service outage notices issued by pipelines. 

 

following the scheduling deadline associated with the timely and evening nominations 

cycles. 

26 See supra n.12. 

27 These standards are more fully summarized in the Version 2.0 NOPR, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,686 at P 7. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 13 - 

NAESB also modified the existing gas-electric coordination WGQ Standards 0.2.1 

through 0.2.3, 0.3.11, through 0.3.15; and created a new Standard 0.2.4 to further define 

the roles and responsibilities of each participant under the Gas/Electric Operational 

Communication Standards promulgated in Order No. 698. As explained in the Version 

2.0 NOPR,28 NAESB also modified WGQ Standard 0.3.14 to change the parties to whom 

pipelines are required to provide notification of operational flow orders and other critical 

notices. Under the Version 2.0 Standards, pipelines are now required to provide 

notification to Balancing Authorities and/or Reliability Coordinators, and Power Plant 

Gas Coordinators. 

Comments

22. Spectra Entities state that the Version 2.0 communication standards designed to 

enhance communication clarity are a good step on the path towards increasing electric 

reliability.29 However, they assert that enhancement of communication and coordination 

of scheduling are not all that is required to ensure gas supplies to gas-fired generation. 

Spectra Entities state that it is also necessary that firm pipeline capacity is available and 

contracted to supply generation.30

 28 Id. P 9. 

29 Commenters on the Version 2.0 NOPR, and the abbreviations used to identify 

them, are listed in the Appendix. 

30 Spectra Entities Comments at 2, 3. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 14 - 

23. NERC expressed general support for the modifications to Standard 0.3.14 that 

changed the parties to whom pipelines are required to provide notification of operational 

flow orders and other critical notices. However, NERC raises a concern about an 

ambiguity in the language of the standard as modified and urges the Commission to 

clarify that pipelines must provide notices of operational flow orders and other critical 

matters to both Balancing Authorities and Reliability Coordinators. NERC states that, 

with this clarification, it supports the standard as a step in the right direction that will help 

support the reliability of the bulk power system.31 

Commission Determination

24. Standard 0.3.14 states: 

A Transportation Service Provider should provide Balancing 

Authorities (BA) and/or Reliability Coordinators (RC) and 

Power Plant Gas Coordinators (PPGC) with notification of 

operational flow orders and other critical notices through the 

PPGC’s choice of Electronic Notice Delivery mechanism(s) 

as set forth in NAESB WGQ Standard Nos. 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 

5.3.35 – 5.3.38. 

25. We interpret this standard to include both Balancing Authorities and Reliability 

Coordinators as affected parties under the Commission regulations who are eligible to 

request from the pipeline and receive direct notification through email or Electronic Data 

Interchange of operational flow orders and other critical notices.32 If both a Balancing 

 

(continued...) 

31 NERC Comments at 3, 4. 

32 This standard refers to the provision of these notices by email or Electronic Data 

Interchange under NAESB standards 5.3.35-5.3.38. Information regarding operational 

flow orders and other critical notices also is publicly available on the pipelines’ websites 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 15 - 

Authority and Reliability Coordinator in a relevant area request such notification, then 

the pipeline must provide it. The Commission expects Balancing Authorities and 

Reliability Coordinators to request such notification whenever necessary to ensure the 

reliability of their systems. 

26. Spectra’s concern with the availability of firm pipeline capacity to serve gas-fired 

generators is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

2. Interpretations of NAESB WGQ Standards

27. INGAA notes that the Commission’s policy is not to incorporate NAESB’s 

interpretation of its standards into the Commission’s regulations.33 INGAA recognizes 

that the Commission’s view is that, while interpretations may provide useful guidance, 

they are not determinative and the Commission does not require pipelines to comply with 

NAESB’s interpretations.34 But INGAA states that the interpretations can be instructive 

to the industry on how to implement the standards. Further, INGAA suggests that the 

interpretations should be given appropriate deference in circumstance in which pipelines 

elect to rely on the interpretations to implement the standards. INGAA contends that the 

written interpretations of the NAESB WGQ Standards go through the same comment and 

 

pursuant to the postings required by 18 CFR 284.12 (b) (3) (vi) and Standards 4.3.27- 

4.3.29. 

33 INGAA Comments at 3 (citing Standards for Business Practices and 

Communication Protocols for Public Utilities, Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,299 at n.16). 

34 Id. (citing Version 2.0 NOPR at 18). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 16 - 

voting process as other standards published by NAESB. INGAA requests clarification 

that pipelines that adhere to the NAESB WGQ Interpretations published with Version 

2.0, including any associated errata subject to the Commission’s final order in this 

docket, should be found to be in compliance with the standards.35

Commission Determination

28. As stated in the Version 2.0 NOPR, while NAESB’s interpretations may provide 

useful guidance, historically, the Commission’s practice has been to not find them 

determinative and it has not required pipelines to comply with them. Because pipelines 

are not required to comply with the interpretations, it is not appropriate to include them in 

the regulations, under which compliance is mandatory. While the Commission has found 

in the past, and will continue to find, the interpretations a useful interpretative guide to 

the meaning of standards,36 we cannot guarantee that the Commission will agree with an 

interpretation that is not consistent with Commission regulations or with the language of 

the standards.37

 

(continued...) 

35 Id. 

36 See Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc., 98 FERC ¶ 61,019, at 61,057 (2002) 

(relying on GISB’s (now NAESB) interpretation); El Paso Natural Gas Company, 97 

FERC ¶ 61,174, at 61,816 (2001) (recommending parties seek an interpretation of a 

standard so the record will reflect GISB’s construction of the standard); Ozark Gas 

Transmission System, 79 FERC ¶ 61,222, at 62,006 (1997) (granting rehearing based, in 

part, on interpretation). 

37 See, e.g., Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 

Order No. 587-Q, 100 FERC ¶ 61,105, at P 16 (2002) (interpreting NAESB standard and 

not deferring to a request to NAESB); ANR Pipeline Co., 80 FERC ¶ 61,210, at 61,833 

(1997) (declining to defer in advance to any GISB interpretation, although suggesting 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 17 - 

3. Definition of Operating Capacity 

29. INGAA suggests that NAESB developed the term “Operating Capacity,” as used 

in NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standard 0.3.19 and related standards, to comply with a 

pipeline’s requirement to post “design capacity,” per 18 CFR 284.13(d).38 INGAA 

contends that the term “Operating Capacity,” and related business standards and data set, 

were created with industry support and approved by the full NAESB process. Further, 

INGAA argues that for the purposes of these NAESB Standards, the terms “Operating 

Capacity,” as defined by NAESB, and “design capacity” are interchangeable. 

Accordingly, INGAA requests that the Commission clarify that pipelines that post 

“Operating Capacity” as defined by NAESB Standards are in compliance with the 

Commission’s requirement for pipelines to post “design capacity,” per the requirements 

of 18 CFR 284.13(d).39

Commission Determination

30. We will deny INGAA’s request for clarification. NAESB defines Operating 

Capacity as “the total capacity which could be scheduled at (or through) the identified 

 

that the pipeline obtain such an interpretation); Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited 

Partnership, 79 FERC ¶ 61,194, at 61,911 (1997) (declining to adopt an interpretation at 

odds with standard). 

38 NAESB Standard 0.3.18 states in part: “Operating Capacity (OPC) should be 

reported as the total capacity which could be scheduled at (or through) the identified 

point, segment or zone in the indicated direction of flow.” 

39 INGAA Comments at 4. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 18 - 

point, segment or zone in the indicated direction of flow.”40 The Commission’s 

information posting requirements in section 284.13(d), however, require pipelines to 

post “Design Capacity.” not operating capacity. It is not clear that NAESB’s term 

“Operating Capacity,” although useful, is equivalent to the term “Design Capacity” used 

in the Commission regulations.41 We therefore request that the industry, through 

NAESB, consider whether the two terms are functionally equivalent or specify different 

types of information and to include this information in its next version update. Should 

the industry conclude the terms are not equivalent, NAESB should make appropriate 

revisions to the standards in NAESB’s next version by adding a design capacity as a 

separate reporting category. If industry members believe that operating capacity is a 

more useful measure than design capacity, they will need to request a revision of 

284.13(d). While these issues are being considered, we will not require pipelines to 

make changes to their current posting procedures. 

 40 NAESB WGQ Standard No. 0.4.2 - Operational Capacity. 

41 For example, while pipelines that post both design and operating capacity, often 

report the same number for both types of capacity, they may sometimes report differences 

between operating and design capacity. For example, on June 21, 2012, Northwest 

Pipeline posted at its Baker Compressor Decreasing point (177) design capacity of 

491,000, and Operating Capacity of 700,000. See, e.g., Northwest Pipeline GP, 

Operationally Available Capacity Report Posting Date/Time: 6/21/2012 8:15 PM 

(http://www.northwest.williams.com/NWP_Portal/CapacityResultsScrollable.action). 

See also El Paso Natural Gas Co., 138 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2012) (differentiating between 

certificated capacity and sustainable capacity). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 19 - 

III. Implementation Schedule and Procedures for Waivers and Extension of Time

31. In the Version 2.0 NOPR, the Commission proposed an implementation schedule 

that would require compliance with the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards beginning 

on the first day of the month after the fourth full month following issuance of the final 

rule.42 To clarify, the Commission gave the example that, if the final rule were issued on 

February 17, 2012, compliance would be required beginning on July 1, 2012.43 

32. The Commission also proposed in the Version 2.0 NOPR to increase the 

transparency of the pipelines’ incorporation by reference of the NAESB WGQ Standards 

so that shippers and the Commission will know which tariff provisions implements each 

standard as well as the status of each standard.44 To accomplish this, the Commission 

gave proposed instructions on how pipelines should designate sections in their tariff 

filings.45 

A. Implementation Schedule

33. In their comments on the Version 2.0 NOPR, AGA and Southern Star voice 

support for prompt implementation of the standards.46 INGAA requests that the 

Commission revise its implementation requirements to permit a pipeline to file its listing 

 42 Version 2.0 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,686 at P 24. 

43 Id.

44 Id. P 25. 

45 Id.

46 AGA Comments at 4-5, Southern Star Comments at 2. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 20 - 

of which tariff provisions implement each NAESB standard and the status of each 

NAESB standard as part of either a sheet-based or section-based tariff.47

Commission Determination

34. The Commission will require natural gas pipelines to comply with the NAESB 

WGQ Version 2.0 Standards that we are incorporating by reference in this Final Rule 

beginning on December 1, 2012. We are requiring this implementation schedule to give 

the natural gas pipelines subject to these standards adequate time to implement these 

changes. In addition, pipelines must file tariff records to reflect the changed standards by 

October 1, 2012. 

35. We will grant INGAA’s request for clarification and allow sheet based solutions. 

As noted in Order No. 714, companies may determine to structure their tariffs either 

using the existing tariff sheet format or as sections.48 The intent of the implementation 

schedule proposed in the Version 2.0 NOPR was not to preclude sheet based solutions. 

Accordingly, we will accept sheet-based alternatives. 

36. In addition, as proposed in the Version 2.0 NOPR, the Commission is also 

revising the compliance filing requirements to increase the transparency of the pipelines’ 

incorporation by reference of the NAESB WGQ Standards so that shippers and the 

Commission will know which tariff provision(s) implements each standard as well as the 

status of each standard. 

 47 INGAA Comments at 2-3. 

48 Order No. 714, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,276 at P 34. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 21 - 

(1) The pipelines must designate a single tariff section or tariff sheet(s) under 

which every NAESB standard is listed.49

(2) For each standard, each pipeline must specify in the tariff section or tariff 

sheet(s) listing all the NAESB standards: 

(a) whether the standard is incorporated by reference; 

(b) for those standards not incorporated by reference, the tariff provision 

that complies with the standard;50 and 

(c) a statement identifying any standards for which the pipeline has been 

granted a waiver, extension of time, or other variance with respect to 

compliance with the standard.51 

(3) If the pipeline is requesting a continuation of an existing waiver or 

extension of time, it must include a table in its transmittal letter that states the 

standard for which a waiver or extension of time was granted, and the docket 

 49 This section should be a separate tariff record under the Commission’s 

electronic tariff filing requirements and is to be filed electronically using the eTariff 

portal using the Type of Filing Code 580. 

50 For example, pipelines are required to include the full text of the NAESB 

nomination and capacity release timeline standards (WGQ Standards 1.3.2(i-v) and 5.3.2) 

in their tariffs. Order No. 587-U, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,307 at P 39 & n.42. The 

pipeline would indicate which tariff provision complies with each of these standards. 

51 Shippers can use the Commission’s electronic tariff system to locate the tariff 

record containing the NAESB standards, which will indicate the docket in which any 

waiver or extension of time was granted. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 22 - 

number or order citation to the proceeding in which the waiver or extension was 

granted. 

37. This information will give Commission staff and all shippers a common location 

that identifies the manner in which the pipeline is incorporating all the NAESB WGQ 

Standards and the standards with which it is required to comply. The Commission will 

post on its eLibrary website (under Docket No. RM96-1-037) a sample tariff format, to 

provide filers an illustrative example to aid them in preparing their compliance filings.52

B. Waivers and Extensions of Time

38. As discussed in the Version 2.0 NOPR, in previous compliance proceedings there 

has been a marked increase in the number of requests for waivers or for extensions of 

time to comply with standards. The Commission’s orders on these requests have 

developed a set of general principles that the Commission intends to follow in reviewing 

such requests in the future.53 Thus, as discussed in the Version 2.0 NOPR and consistent 

with existing precedent, the Commission clarifies its policy regarding requests for 

waivers and extensions of time as well as the information that must accompany such 

requests as follows: 

 52 http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 

53 See Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines,

compliance order, 133 FERC ¶ 61,096, at P 4 (October 28 Order), further compliance 

order, 133 FERC ¶ 61,185, at P 4 (2010) (November 30 Order); B-R Pipeline Co., 

128 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2009) (B-R Pipeline). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 23 - 

(1) All waivers and extensions of time will be granted only in reference to the 

individual set of NAESB standards being adopted (in this case NAESB WGQ’s 

Version 2.0 Standards). Pipelines will need to seek renewal of any such waivers 

or extensions for each version of the standards the Commission adopts.54 We will 

follow this practice to avoid an automatic renewal without oversight of a waiver or 

extension in a situation where there may no longer be a need to continue the 

waiver or extension. If circumstances continue to support the need for a waiver or 

extension, the pipeline can detail those circumstances to the Commission in a new 

request for waiver or extension. 

(2) Waivers or extensions of time will not be granted for standards that merely 

describe the process by which a pipeline must perform a business function, if it 

performs that function, and where the standard does not require the pipeline to 

perform the business function.55 In such a case, as long as the pipeline does not 

perform the business function, it does not trigger a requirement to comply with the 

standard and hence no waiver or extension of time is required. If, however, the 

 54 In B-R Pipeline, 128 FERC ¶ 61,126 at P 6, the Commission stated that “each 

time the Commission adopts new versions of [the] standards ... pipelines must request 

waiver [or extension of time] of the new standards.” 

55 October 28 Order, 133 FERC ¶ 61,096 at P 9; November 30 Order, 133 FERC 

¶ 61,185 at P 7. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 24 - 

pipeline begins performing the business function, the standard(s) will already be in 

its tariff and the pipeline will be required to comply with the standard(s).56

(3) If a pipeline is seeking a renewal of a waiver or extension of time request, it 

must justify why the waiver or extension should remain in force and it must 

provide a citation to an order and docket number of the proceeding in which the 

initial waiver or extension of time was granted.57

(4) The Commission ordinarily will decline to grant waivers in cases where 

pipelines maintain they should not be required to incur the costs of implementing 

standards shippers are not interested in using. Instead, the Commission’s 

approach to these requests will be to grant the pipeline an extension of time for 

compliance until 60 days after the pipeline receives a request to comply with the 

standard.58 Waivers are justified only when the pipeline can demonstrate that 

there is good cause not to require the implementation of a standard, even though 

shippers want to use the standard. 

 56 As an example, Standard 4.3.96 requires pipelines to provide hourly gas quality 

information “to the extent that the TSP is required to do so in its tariff or general terms 

and conditions, a settlement agreement, or by order of an applicable regulatory 

authority.” A pipeline that is not required to provide hourly gas quality information, 

therefore, does not require a waiver or extension of time for compliance with this 

standard, because the standard imposes no obligation on the pipeline to comply with the 

standard until it provides hourly gas quality information. See October 28 Order, 133 

FERC ¶ 61,096 at P 9. 

57 See Order No. 587-U, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,307 at PP 38-39. 

58 See T.W. Phillips Pipeline Corp., 137 FERC ¶ 61,104, at P 11 (2011). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 25 - 

(5) The Commission generally will not entertain waiver or extension of time 

requests for NAESB WGQ Definitions (x.2.z Standards). The NAESB WGQ 

Definitions specify and elucidate specific terms of generally applicable business 

practices and do not require a pipeline to perform any action or incur expense to 

comply with such Definitions. The Commission sees a potential for problems 

arising if it allows a pipeline to substitute its own definitions for the consensus 

definitions developed in the NAESB process. 

39. In addition, to provide guidance to pipelines in filing requests for waivers or 

extensions of time, the Commission will explain its policy regarding waivers of the 

following four general categories of NAESB standards: (1) business practice standards; 

(2) requirements to conduct business electronically using the Internet (Internet Business 

Standards); (3) Commission Internet posting requirements (Internet Posting Standards); 

and (4) requirements to conduct computer-to-computer transactions using EDI. It is 

important for pipelines to identify clearly in their filings the specific standards from 

which they are seeking waivers or extensions of time. In particular, pipelines need to be 

clear as to whether they are requesting waivers of the Internet Business Standards or the 

EDI Standards: 

(1) Waivers or Extensions of Time to Comply with Business Practice 

Standards. Waivers or extensions of time to comply with business practice 

standards will generally be denied because these standards establish the basic 

principles on which business is required to be conducted. Nonetheless, if a 

pipeline believes such a waiver or extension of time to comply is justified, it must 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 26 - 

detail specific reasons why it seeks the waiver or extension of time to comply with 

the standard and address alternative methods by which it could comply with the 

objectives of the standard.59

(2) Waivers or Extensions of Time to Comply with the Internet Business 

Standards. Waivers or extensions of time to comply with the requirement to 

conduct business over the Internet generally will be granted based on a pipeline’s 

individual circumstances, such as the size of the pipeline, the number of shippers, 

its ability to provide electronic services, the demand for such services, and 

alternative means by which the pipeline conducts the business practice. For 

smaller pipelines, the Commission has granted waivers of the Internet Business 

Standards when such pipelines have shown that complying with such standards 

would prove unduly burdensome.60 For larger pipelines, the Commission has 

rarely granted waivers or extensions of time to comply with the Internet Business 

Standards.61 However, if a pipeline can demonstrate that shippers are not using a 

standard, then the Commission generally will grant an extension of time to 

comply. Such an extension of time ensures that pipelines do not needlessly have 

 59 See Carolina Gas Transmission Corp., 131 FERC ¶ 61,211, at P 4 (2010); 

MoGas Pipeline LLC, 131 FERC ¶ 61,251, at P 7 (2010); Granite State Gas 

Transmission, Inc., 132 FERC ¶ 61,262, at P 8 (2010) (requiring small pipelines to use 

manual methods of implementing index-based capacity releases). 

60 October 28 Order, 133 FERC ¶ 61,096 at PP 17-18; November 30 Order, 133 

FERC ¶ 61,185 at P 9. 

61 October 28 Order, 133 FERC ¶ 61,096 at PP 17-18. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 27 - 

to spend money revamping computer services that shippers do not use while, at the 

same time, ensuring that shippers have access to such services if they need them. 

(3) Waivers or Extensions of Time to Comply with Internet Posting Standards. 

The Commission rarely grants waivers or extensions of time to comply with the 

posting requirements because posting of this information is required by the 

Commission’s regulations. The cost of maintaining and posting information on an 

Internet website is not great even for smaller pipelines. 

(4) Waivers or Extensions of Time to Comply with EDI Standards. As 

discussed in the Version 2.0 NOPR,62 the Commission generally will grant 

waivers or extensions of time to comply with the EDI requirements based on a 

pipeline’s individual circumstances, such as the size of the pipeline, the number of 

shippers, its ability to provide electronic services, the demand for such services, 

and alternative means by which the pipeline conducts the business practice. For 

smaller pipelines, the Commission generally grants waivers of the EDI Standards 

when such pipelines have shown that complying with such standards would prove 

unduly burdensome.63 For larger pipelines on which shippers are not using a 

standard, in lieu of an outright waiver, the Commission generally will grant an 

 62 See Version 2.0 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,686 at P 27. 

63 Id. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 28 - 

extension of time until such time as a request is made to use EDI.64 As with the 

EDI requirements relating to capacity releases,65 NAESB also can review whether 

certain business transactions still need to be available through EDI, given the lack 

of usage, and pipelines can also seek such revisions from NAESB for EDI 

standards whose upkeep no is longer cost justified. 

C. Comments on Implementation and Waiver Policy

40. MidAmerican filed the only comment on these policies. It argues that 60 days is 

too short a time period to comply with requests for EDI standards, and recommends that 

the Commission allow pipelines up to 90 days to comply with a shipper request to 

implement an EDI dataset not currently supported by the pipeline. MidAmerican argues 

that the that 90 days is a more reasonable amount of time for compliance, given the 

technological requirements of the NAESB WGQ EDI related data sets.66

41. The Commission cannot determine with certainty exactly how long it will take 

each pipeline to comply with each individual NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standard as 

this varies, depending on each pipeline’s unique circumstances. The policy guidance we 

are giving in this Final Rule offers a reasonable general rule for meeting compliance 

obligations that balances both shippers’ needs for the Business Practices and provides a 

 64 See supra n.60; Texas Eastern Transmission LP., 100 FERC ¶ 61,364 (2002) 

(granting an extension of time for unused EDI datasets, but requiring compliance with 

datasets for publicly available capacity release information). 

65 See Version 2.0 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,686 at P 10. 

66 MidAmerican Comments at 2, 3. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 29 - 

reasonable amount of time for the pipelines to comply with the NAESB WGQ 

Standards. To the extent a pipeline’s unique circumstances dictate that it requires 

additional time to implement a given NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standard, the pipeline 

may raise such issues in its compliance filing or in a request for waiver or extensions of 

time, so that its shippers will have an opportunity to intervene and raise any concerns 

with the pipeline’s proposals.67

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

42. 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.68 NAESB approved the standards under its consensus procedures. 

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (§ 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 February 16, 2012, the Commission 

issued the Version 2.0 NOPR, which proposed to incorporate by reference NAESB’s 

Version 2.0 Standards. The Commission has taken the comments on the Version 2.0 

NOPR into account in fashioning this Final Rule. 

 67 See, e.g., WestGas InterState, Inc., 130 FERC ¶ 61,165, at P 4 (2010). 

68 See supra n.3. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 30 - 

V. Information Collection Statement

43. The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) regulations require approval of 

certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of 

a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an 

expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a 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. 

44. This Final Rule amends the Commission’s regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 to 

incorporate by reference the latest version (Version 2.0) of certain business practice 

standards adopted by NAESB’s WGQ applicable to natural gas pipelines including 

Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21 as modified by the minor corrections and errata approved by 

NAESB. In this Final Rule, the Commission also provides guidance on the criteria the 

Commission will use in deciding whether to grant or deny requests for waivers or 

extensions of time and modifies the compliance filing requirements to add transparency 

as to where in the tariff incorporated standards may be found. 

45. Under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,69 the reporting 

requirements in this rulemaking will be submitted to OMB for review. OMB elected to 

take no action on the Version 2.0 NOPR, and instead deferred its approval until review of 

the Final Rule. 

 69 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 31 - 

46. The Commission solicited comments on the need for this information, whether 

the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing the respondent’s burden, including the use of 

automated information techniques. No comments were filed raising any objections to the 

burden estimate presented in the WGQ Version 2.0 NOPR. Accordingly, we will use that 

same burden estimate in this Final Rule. 

Data Collection No. of 

Respondents 

No. of Responses 

Per Respondent 

Hours Per 

Response 

Total No. of 

Hours 

FERC-54570 161 1 10 1,610

FERC-549C71 161 1 22 3,542

Totals 5,152

Total Annual Hours for Collections 

(Reporting and Recordkeeping, if appropriate) = 5,152 

Information Collection Costs: The Commission projects the average annualized cost of 

compliance with these regulations to be the following:72

 70 Data collection FERC-545 covers rate change filings made by natural gas 

pipelines, including tariff changes (OMB Control No. 1902-0154). 

71 Data collection FERC-549C covers Standards for Business Practices of 

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines (OMB Control No. 1902-0174). 

72 The total annualized cost for the two information collections is $303,968. This 

number is reached by multiplying the total hours to prepare a response (hours) by an 

hourly wage estimate of $59 (a composite estimate that includes legal, technical and 

support staff wages and benefits obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistic data at 

http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm and 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm rates). $303,968 = $59 x 5,152. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 32 - 

FERC-545 FERC-549C 

Annualized Capital/Startup Costs $94,990 $208,978 

Annualized Costs (Operations & 

Maintenance) 

N/A N/A 

Total Annualized Costs $94,990 $208,978 

Total Cost for all Respondents = $303,968 

47. OMB regulations73 require OMB to approve certain information collection 

requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is submitting notification of this 

proposed rule to OMB. These information collections are mandatory requirements. 

Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rates Change (Non-Formal); 

FERC-549C, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines 

Action: Proposed collection. 

OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0154, 1902-0174 

Respondents: Business or other for profit, (i.e., Natural Gas Pipelines, applicable to only 

a few small businesses.) Although the intraday reporting requirements will affect electric 

plant operators, the Commission is not imposing the reporting burden of adopting these 

standards on those entities. 

Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business procedures, capital/startup). 

Necessity of Information: The requirements in this Final Rule will upgrade the 

Commission’s current business practices and communication standards by specifically: 

(1) adding and revising standards allowing the elimination of EDI requirements for 

 73 5 CFR 1320.11. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 33 - 

Capacity Release Upload information; (2) creating and modifying existing information 

posting requirements for websites and browsers; (3) requiring pipelines to provide 

security information; (4) requiring the posting of information on waste heat recovery 

feasibility on the Internet; (5) modifying pipeline notice content and creating new 

pipeline notice types; and (6) creating standards to ensure NAESB data format is 

consistent with other data reporting via the Internet by using CSV. 

The implementation of these data requirements will provide additional 

transparency to informational posting web sites and will improve communication 

standards, including gas-electric communications. The implementation of these 

standards and regulations will promote the additional efficiency and reliability of the gas 

industry’s operations thereby helping the Commission to carry out its responsibilities 

under the Natural Gas Act of promoting the efficiency and reliability of the gas industry’s 

operations. In addition, the Commission's Office of Enforcement will use the data for 

general industry oversight. 

Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to business 

practices of natural gas pipelines and made a preliminary determination that the proposed 

revisions are necessary to establish more efficient coordination between the gas and 

electric industries. Requiring such information ensures both a common means of 

communication and common business practices to limit miscommunication for 

participants engaged in the sale of electric energy at wholesale and the transportation of 

natural gas. These requirements conform to the Commission's plan for efficient 

information collection, communication, and management within the natural gas pipeline 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 34 - 

industries. 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. 

48. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 

888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, e-mail: 

DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873. 

49. Comments concerning these information collections can be sent to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk 

Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments 

should be sent by e-mail to OMB at the following e-mail address: 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference FERC-545 and/or FERC 549C and the 

docket number of this Final Rule (Docket No. RM96-1-037) in your submission. 

VI. Environmental Analysis

50. 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.74 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 

 74 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations 

Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 35 - 

transportation of electric power that requires no construction of facilities.75 Therefore, an 

environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared as part of this Final 

Rule. 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

51. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)76 generally requires a description 

and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that 

accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize any significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a 

small business.77 The SBA has established a size standard for pipelines transporting 

natural gas, stating that a firm is small if its annual receipts are less than $25.5 million.78

52. The standards being incorporated by reference in this final rule impose 

requirements only on interstate pipelines, the majority of which are not small businesses. 

Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA’s definition of 

a small entity. Approximately 161 entities would be potential respondents subject to data 

collection FERC-545 reporting requirements and also be subject to data collection FERC 

 75 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27). 

76 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 

77 13 CFR 121.101. 

78 13 CFR 121.201, subsection 486. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 36 - 

549-C reporting requirements. Nearly all of these entities are large entities. For the year 

2010 (the most recent year for which information is available), only 10 entities not 

affiliated with larger companies had annual revenues of less than $25.5 million.79 

53. The Commission estimates that the one-time implementation cost of these 

standards is $303,968, or $1,888 per company.80 The Commission does not consider the 

estimated $1,888 impact per entity to be significant. As noted in the Final Rule, the 

Commission has adopted policies permitting small entities to request waivers or 

extensions of time with respect to the electronic processing requirements of these 

regulations. Moreover, the business practice standards are designed to benefit all 

customers, including small businesses. 

54. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA,81 the Commission certifies 

that the regulations being adopted here will not have a significant economic 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 

 79 Our estimate of the number of small entities subject to this final rule differs 

from the tally in the Version 2.0 NOPR because the threshold for being deemed a small 

company recently has changed from less than $7 million to less than $25.5 million.

80 This number is derived by dividing the total cost figure by the number of 

respondents. $303,968/161 = $1,888. 

81 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 37 - 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business 

hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 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 website during normal 

business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-

3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 

502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

58. These regulations are effective [insert date 30 days from publication in the 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 38 - 

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

Incorporation by reference, Natural gas, Reporting and record keeping requirements. 

By the Commission. 

( S E A L ) 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 39 - 

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 

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

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

1331-1356. 

2. Section 284.12 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 

Sec. 284.12 Standards for pipeline business operations and communications. 

 (a) * * * 

 (1) * * * 

 (i) Additional Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010, with Minor Corrections 

Applied Through April 30, 2012); 

 (ii) Nominations Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010, with Minor 

Corrections Applied Through December 2, 2011); 

 (iii) Flowing Gas Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010, with Minor 

Corrections Applied Through June 3, 2011); 

 (iv) Invoicing Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010, with Minor 

Corrections Applied Through June 3, 2011); 

 (v) Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards (Version 2.0, 

November 30, 2010, with Minor Corrections Applied Through December 2, 2011) with 

the exception of Standard 4.3.4; 
Docket No. RM96-1-037 - 40 - 

 (vi) Capacity Release Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010, with 

Minor Corrections Applied Through January 5, 2012); and 

 (vii) Internet Electronic Transport Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 

2010, with Minor Corrections Applied Through January 2, 2011) with the exception of 

Standard 10.3.2. 

* * * * * 
APPENDIX 

List of Commenters1

Commenter Short Name or Acronym 

1 Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC, 

Spectra Energy Partners, LP, and their 

regulated pipelines and storage facilities 

Spectra Entities 

2 North American Energy Standards 

Board2

NAESB 

3 Interstate Natural Gas Association3 INGAA 

4 North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation 

NERC 

5 Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.4 Southern Star 

6 MidAmerican Energy Pipeline Group, 

including Kern River Gas Transmission 

Company and Northern Natural Gas 

Company 

MidAmerican 

7 American Gas Association5 AGA 

 1

 In addition, the ISO/RTO Council submitted notice on March 23, 2012 that it 

might file comments in Docket No. AD12-12-000. It filed no substantive comments in 

this proceeding. 

2

 NAESB followed up its March 23, 2012 comments with a pair of status reports. 

The first was filed on April 4, 2012 and the second was filed on May 4, 2012. 

3

 INGAA also filed supplemental comments on June 4, 2012 supporting the 

incorporation of standards including NAESB’s May 4, 2012 corrections. 

4

 Southern Star also filed supplemental comments on June 4, 2012 supporting the 

incorporation of standards including NAESB’s May 4, 2012 corrections. 

5

 AGA’s comments, like those of INGAA and Southern Star, supported the 

incorporation of standards including NAESB’s May 4, 2012 corrections.