[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5521-5525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2931]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM96-1-003; Order No. 587-B]


Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is amending its open 
access regulations by incorporating by reference standards promulgated 
by the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB). These standards require 
interstate natural gas pipelines to conduct certain standardized 
business transactions across the Internet according to protocols.

DATES: This rule is effective March 10, 1997.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
March 10, 1997.
    Pipelines are to implement the Internet protocols beginning April 
1, 1996, according to a staggered schedule established in Order No. 
587, 61 FR 19211 (May 1, 1996).

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Goldenberg, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, 
(202) 208-2294
Marvin Rosenberg, Office of Economic Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-
1283
Kay Morice, Office of Pipeline Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-
0507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of 
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all 
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of 
this document during normal business hours in Room 2A, 888 First 
Street, N.E., Washington DC 20426.
    The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic 
bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal 
documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to 
the user and may be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by 
dialing 202-208-1397 if dialing locally or 1-800-856-3920 if dialing 
long distance. To access CIPS, set your communications software to 
19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, 
no parity, 8 data bits and stop bit. The full text of this order will 
be available on CIPS in ASCII and WordPerfect 5.1 format. CIPS user 
assistance is available at 202-208-2474.

[[Page 5522]]

    CIPS is also available on the Internet through the Fed World 
system. Telnet software is required. To access CIPS via the Internet, 
point your browser to the URL address: http://www.fedworld.gov and 
select the ``Go to the FedWorld Telnet Site'' button. When your Telnet 
software connects you, log on to the FedWorld system, scroll down and 
select FedWorld by typing: 1 and at the command line and type: /go 
FERC. FedWorld may also be accessed by Telnet at the address 
fedworld.gov.
    Finally, the complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, La Dorn Systems 
Corporation. La Dorn Systems Corporation is also located in the Public 
Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426.

    Before Commissioners: Elizabeth Anne Moler, Chair; Vicky A. 
Bailey, James J. Hoecker, William L. Massey, and Donald F. Santa, 
Jr.

Final Rule

January 30, 1997.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending 
its open access regulations to adopt standards by which interstate 
natural gas pipelines will conduct business transactions with their 
business partners over the Internet. The regulations incorporate by 
reference standards promulgated by the Gas Industry Standards Board 
(GISB), a private standards organization devoted to developing 
standards representing a consensus of the interests in the natural gas 
industry.

I. Background

    In Order No. 587,<SUP>1 the Commission incorporated by reference 
consensus standards developed by GISB covering certain industry 
business practices--Nominations, Flowing Gas, Invoicing, and Capacity 
Release--as well as GISB datasets in Electronic Data Interchange ASC 
X12 (EDI) format that detailed the data requirements needed to conduct 
business transactions in these areas. These standards are to be 
implemented by the pipelines according to a staggered compliance 
schedule from April to June 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 (Jul. 26, 1996), III FERC 
Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles para. 31,039 (Jul. 17, 1996), 
reh'g denied, 61 FR 55208 (Oct. 25, 1996), 77 FERC para. 61,061 
(Oct. 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Order No. 587, the Commission did not adopt GISB standards 
governing the method for transmitting the business transaction datasets 
(the electronic delivery mechanism (EDM)) because GISB was still in the 
process of testing its standards governing Internet communications. The 
Commission anticipated that the EDM standards for the business 
transactions would be implemented in April through June 1997 in 
conjunction with the implementation of the business practices 
standards.
    After a successful pilot test, GISB filed, on September 30, 1996, 
consensus EDM standards for conducting the standardized business 
transactions across the Internet. It also included in the filing 
additional standards for providing other information using the Internet 
and additional business practice standards. For communications 
involving business transactions, the GISB standards would require 
trading partners (pipelines and their customers as well as others 
communicating with pipelines, such as producers or point operators that 
confirm nominations) to maintain Internet servers and Internet 
addresses and to exchange files formatted in ASC X12 using HTTP (hyper-
text transfer protocol) as the Internet protocol (hereinafter Internet 
server model).<SUP>2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Standards 4.3.1-4.3.4 and 4.3.7-4.3.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 13, 1996, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NOPR) <SUP>3 proposing to adopt all the standards GISB 
submitted on September 30, 1996.<SUP>4 The Commission proposed to 
follow the implementation schedule suggested by GISB. Under this 
schedule, the standards for Internet communication of business 
transactions would be implemented according to the staggered schedule 
adopted in Order No. 587, beginning April 1, 1997. With respect to the 
other Internet standards and the additional business practice 
standards, GISB proposed a March 1997 final rule, with implementation 
of the additional Internet standards in August of 1997 and pipeline 
tariff filings for the business practices standards to be made in May, 
June, and July of 1997, with implementation in November 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas 
Pipelines, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 58790 (Nov. 19, 
1996), IV FERC Stats. & Regs. Proposed Regulations para. 35,521 
(Nov. 13, 1996).
    \4\ The NOPR also gave notice of a staff technical conference to 
discuss the future direction of standardization and disputed issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thirteen comments were filed on the NOPR from Natural Gas Supply 
Association, Williams Interstate Natural Gas System (WINGS), Burlington 
Resources Oil & Gas Company, Natural Gas Clearinghouse, Conoco, Inc., 
and Vastar Gas Marketing Inc.(filing jointly) (NGC/Conoco/Vastar), 
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), Altra Energy Technologies, L.L.C. 
(Altra), Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB), NorAm Gas Transmission 
Company and Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (filing jointly) 
(NorAm), ANR Pipeline Company and Colorado Interstate Gas Pipeline 
Company (filing jointly), Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp., 
Southern California Edison Company (SoCal Edison), and the PanEnergy 
Companies.

II. Discussion

    The Commission is incorporating by reference the GISB Internet 
server standards for conducting business transactions. Pipelines will 
be required to implement these standards according to the April through 
June schedule for implementing the associated business practice 
standards. Since the additional Internet standards and business 
practice standards are not to be implemented as quickly, the Commission 
will address these standards in a later order.
    The industry and GISB have developed a communication infrastructure 
that is at the forefront of the use of Internet-based protocols to 
conduct business transactions.<SUP>5 The protocols adopted in this rule 
promise to provide the gas industry with the ability to use automated 
computer-to-computer communications to more efficiently conduct crucial 
and time-sensitive business transactions, such as nominating and 
confirming daily gas flows, as well as invoicing and payment. The 
impact of these standards is not limited to the Commission-regulated 
aspect of communication between customers and pipelines. These 
protocols also carry the potential for enhancing the effectiveness of 
communication between all members of the gas industry, including 
confirmations between pipelines and upstream point operators, 
confirmations among upstream and downstream pipelines, as well as 
business transactions involving local distribution companies, 
marketers, and producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See EDI Industry Poised to Invade the Internet, EDI News, 
January 6, 1997 (Vol. 11, No. 1); Dave Kosiur, Electronic Commerce 
Edges Closer, PCWeek On Line, Oct. 10, 1996, <a href="http://www.pcweek.com/
@netweek/1007/07set.html">http://www.pcweek.com/
@netweek/1007/07set.html</a> (Jan.9, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the GISB Internet server standards adopted in this rule, 
pipelines and their trading partners would each maintain an Internet 
server and an Internet address. Files would be transmitted, when ready, 
to the trading partners' Internet address and these files will be 
received and processed automatically by the recipient's server,

[[Page 5523]]

with a response sent to the sender indicating successful receipt or 
identifying the nature of certain errors, such as the use of an 
improper common code identifier.
    WINGS, SoCal Edison, and PG&E object to the adoption of the 
Internet server approach, principally because of concerns about the 
cost and difficulty to customers of establishing and operating an 
Internet server. Instead, they recommend what they term a more 
traditional Internet approach in which the pipeline would establish an 
Internet World Wide Web page which the customer can access by 
contracting with a traditional Internet Service Provider (ISP) and then 
using a standard Internet browser, such as Netscape Navigator or 
Microsoft Internet Explorer (hereinafter Web Browser model).<SUP>6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This model is similar to the GISB model for disseminating 
additional information over the Internet, such as pipeline tariffs, 
affiliated marketer information, and an index of customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Web browser model, like the Internet server approach, a 
customer can send a document to the pipeline's Internet server. Unlike 
the Internet server approach, however, the customer's computer would 
not automatically receive responsive documents or confirmations from 
the pipeline. The customer would have to reconnect to the pipeline's 
Web page to retrieve all confirmations and responses from the pipeline. 
SoCal Edison maintains that the Web browser model has the capability of 
transmitting gas transactions in a standardized file format using the 
normal Internet file transfer protocol (FTP). It further maintains that 
the Web browser model has the capability for on-line data entry and 
validation of time critical nominations, like the pipeline's current 
Electronic Bulletin Boards (EBBs).
    SoCal Edison further states that, based on its estimates, the 
minimum cost of using the Internet server model is $18,000 per year 
(under a contract with a ``specialized'' third-party service provider) 
compared with a yearly cost of $240 for the Web browser model. SoCal 
maintains that even if the Internet server model is adopted for users 
capable of using the ASC X12 formats and an Internet server, a lower-
cost interactive solution, such as the Web browser model, also should 
be provided.
    GISB, Altra, Williston Basin, and NGC/Conoco/Vastar support the 
consensus agreement to use the Internet server approach as the 
appropriate model for time-sensitive transactional data. The Internet 
server approach, they contend, allows for automatic transmittal and 
reception of documents, which will facilitate computer-to-computer 
exchanges of information. They argue that the Web browser approach is 
more appropriate for one-way communication where customers wish to 
gather information from the pipeline, without having to return 
information, than it is for the two-way communication of business 
transactions where both parties have to send and receive data. They 
regard the Web browser approach as more appropriate for transmitting 
non-transactional data where humans seek to obtain information from 
computers, for example, if a person sought information about a tariff 
provision and needed to search the pipeline's electronic tariff to find 
the information. Altra emphasizes that the time-stamping feature of the 
Internet server approach provides significant benefits to the industry, 
because it enables the sender of a document to know that the document 
has been received by the server of the other party to the transaction 
and has not been lost in transmission. It also maintains that the GISB 
Future Technology Task Force considered using the FTP protocol, but 
concluded it presented numerous problems.
    Altra maintains the capital and operating cost of the Internet 
server approach for the pipelines' customers will vary depending on 
each customer's needs, the size of its business, and the number of 
pipelines with which it deals. GISB points out that there are many 
ISP's who provide everything from basic worldwide web access to 
complete Internet server sites at reasonable prices. Altra and GISB 
further maintain that many customers can effectively share the cost 
(and minimize individual outlays) by using a third-party service 
provider to maintain the Internet server.
    Williston Basin is concerned that its shippers may not be willing 
to make the investment to support the Internet server model if they 
perceive that another, different model may be developed in the future. 
It, therefore, requests a definitive decision and implementation 
schedule so pipelines, shippers, and third-party service providers have 
certainty in the process.
    GISB finally points out that none of these standards have yet been 
implemented and suggests that until they are, no assessment can be made 
of any need for changes or modifications. It urges that the standards 
be given a chance to accomplish their intended goal of helping to 
create a seamless national marketplace for natural gas.
    The Commission is adopting the consensus view of the industry that 
the Internet server model is needed to provide customers with a 
framework for conducting these business transactions efficiently. For 
example, each standardized business transaction requires parties to 
exchange numerous files, including ``Quick Response'' transmissions at 
varying points in the process to verify receipt and errors in 
communication. The Internet server model provides that these multiple 
files can be sent and received automatically by computers at both ends. 
It further enables the party sending the document to obtain a time 
stamp establishing whether the transmission has been received and 
whether there are any errors. If a problem occurs, the sender can 
resubmit the information. In addition, the model provides customers 
with significant flexibility to manage their gas business in the way 
that most effectively meets their needs. Customers (or third-party 
providers) will be receiving transaction information directly from the 
pipelines when the information is ready and can program their computers 
to process such information automatically.
    In contrast, the Web browser approach advocated by WINGS, PG&E, and 
SoCal Edison does not provide the same level of functionality as the 
Internet server model. The Web browser model does not support automatic 
computer-to-computer exchanges; an employee of the customer must access 
the pipeline's home page in order to obtain each quick response and 
confirmation document. There also would be no record that the recipient 
has received a transmitted document.
    As GISB and Altra point out, the Internet server model also 
provides a standardized platform which computer software developers and 
third-party service providers can use to provide customers, including 
smaller customers, with the interface that meets their business needs. 
Third-party service providers should enjoy scale economies in 
establishing Internet servers, which would reduce the costs to smaller 
customers. According to SoCal Edison's cost estimates, for instance, 
the use of a specialized third-party service provider would be the most 
cost-effective way for it to use the Internet server approach, with an 
estimated cost of $1,500/month. Such cost estimates prior to 
implementation are necessarily tentative, since the market has not yet 
had a full opportunity to develop competing products and interfaces to 
meet market demand. However, even if the Internet server model 
ultimately costs more than the Web browser approach advocated by WINGS, 
PG&E, and SoCal Edison, the Internet server model provides benefits not 
available

[[Page 5524]]

from the Web browser approach, such as permitting direct computer-to-
computer communications and automatic processing of information as well 
as reducing the inefficiency, and cost, to shippers of having their 
personnel access the pipeline's home page each time they need to check 
on whether the pipeline has sent a quick response, confirmation, or 
other information.
    Whether changes to the Internet server model or a lower-cost, 
lower-functionality model for transactional exchanges may be needed in 
the future can be determined only after the Internet server model has 
been implemented and GISB, the industry, and the Commission have the 
opportunity to evaluate its performance. Even if it is ultimately 
determined that a lower-cost model is needed for smaller customers, an 
investment in the Internet server model is still needed to provide 
computer-to-computer communication, which appears necessary to provide 
an efficient communication system. Moreover, since the Internet server 
model uses many of the same protocols as the Web browser model, the 
investment and learning involved in developing the Internet server 
approach also would be valuable in the development of additional 
Internet approaches. In the meantime, the Commission has not eliminated 
the pipeline EBBs, so that customers can continue using this means of 
transacting business while the computer services market is developing.
    NorAm requests consideration of three issues as the transition from 
EBBs to the Internet is occurring. First, although GISB has seemingly 
resolved data security and transmission reliability concerns with the 
Internet, NorAm contends the Commission should consider providing 
pipelines protection from negligence claims based on unreliability or 
interference with communications. Second, since the Internet is a 
third-party controlled media, NorAm believes customers should still be 
able to communicate using proprietary pipeline EBBs, the costs of 
which, it asserts, should remain in the pipeline's cost-of-service. 
Third, as a related matter, NorAm asks that the Commission be sensitive 
to the costs and the technological newness of the Internet server model 
and not require customers to incur large costs for implementing the 
Internet server model. On the other hand, Altra expresses a long-run 
concern that if pipelines continue to provide non-standard electronic 
services as a cost-of-service item, third-party vendors will be at a 
competitive disadvantage.
    The Commission sees no need to provide unspecified protection from 
liability since NorAm has not shown that existing negligence principles 
are inadequate to deal with transmission problems. Indeed, one of the 
benefits of the Internet server approach is that it should provide 
notice whether a transmission has been received.
    Both the Internet and the telephone system used to connect EBBs are 
third-party networks, and both systems require computers on both sides 
of the transaction to function properly, with the more likely breakdown 
occurring on the computer systems at either end than on the network in 
between.<SUP>7 Thus, pipelines and their customers should consider, if 
they have not already, fail-safe procedures to deal with such problems. 
Moreover, the Commission is not, at this point, proposing to eliminate 
the pipeline EBBs, so that customers will still have the ability to use 
these systems while the Internet mechanism is fully implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ What is now termed the Internet initially was conceived 
during the cold war as a communication method to maintain continuing 
transmission capability in the event of nuclear war. The concept was 
to replace the then current point-to-point networks, where each site 
on the network was dependent on the link before it, with a web 
network, where information could find its own path even if a section 
was destroyed. See e.g., Life on the Internet, The Online Edition of 
the PBS Series About the People Who are Shaping the Internet, Net 
History, http://www.pbs.org.internet/history (Jan. 7, 1997). The 
more likely eventuality, therefore, is an individual problem such as 
a pipeline or customer's Internet service provider going down, just 
as in the current EBB system a pipeline or customer's EBB computer 
can malfunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Implementation Procedures

    Pipelines are required to implement the standards adopted in this 
final rule according to the staggered schedule set forth in Order No. 
587, beginning on April 1, 1997.<SUP>8 When a pipeline files its tariff 
sheets (as distinct from its pro forma tariff sheets) under section 
154.203 of the Commission's regulations to implement Order No. 587, it 
must incorporate by reference into its tariff the Electronic Delivery 
Mechanism Standards adopted in this rule. A pipeline must further 
conform the definitions and its personnel contacts in its tariff to 
reflect any changes or additions related to the adoption of these 
standards. In complying with the requirements of section 154.203 of the 
Commission's regulations, a pipeline must file a marked version of the 
tariff sheets (under section 154.201) identifying all changes to the 
pro forma tariff sheets previously filed. In addition, the pipeline 
must file, as part of its statement of the nature, the reasons, and the 
basis for the filing, a complete table showing for each GISB standard 
adopted by the Commission, in Order No. 587 and in this rule, the 
complying tariff sheet number, and an explanatory statement, if 
necessary, describing any reasons for deviations from or changes to 
each GISB standard. Any pipeline seeking waiver or extension of the 
requirements of this rule is required to file its request within 30 
days of the issuance of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 61 FR at 39066-67; III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 
30,076-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) <SUP>9 generally 
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The regulations adopted in this rule impose requirements only on 
interstate pipelines, which are not small businesses, and, these 
requirements are, in fact, designed to reduce the difficulty of dealing 
with pipelines by all customers, including small businesses. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission 
hereby certifies that the regulations adopted in this rule will not 
have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Environmental Analysis

    The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment 
or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a 
significant adverse effect on the human environment.<SUP>10 The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these 
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment.<SUP>11 The action taken here falls within categorical 
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are 
clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering, 
analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and 
transportation of natural gas that requires no construction of 
facilities.<SUP>12 Therefore, an environmental assessment is 
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & 
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 para. 30,783 (1987).
    \11\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \12\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Information Collection Statement

    OMB's regulations in 5 CFR 1320.11 require that it approve certain 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements

[[Page 5525]]

(collections of information) imposed by an agency. Upon approval of a 
collection of information, OMB shall assign an OMB control number and 
an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of 
this Rule shall not be penalized for failing to respond to these 
collections of information unless the collections of information 
display valid OMB control numbers.
    The cost estimates for complying with the Internet protocols for 
transmission of the business practice standards were included in the 
FERC-549C information collection costs estimates in Order No. 587. OMB 
has approved the information collection under FERC-549C, Standards for 
Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, (OMB Control 
No. 1902-0174), through September 30, 1999.
    The adoption of the Internet protocols by this rule will create a 
more efficient communication medium for conducting business with 
interstate pipelines and reduce the burdens created by the disparity in 
log-on and other procedures among the pipeline's EBBs. The information 
collection requirements in this final rule will be reported directly to 
the industry users and later be subject to audit by the Commission. The 
implementation of these data requirements will help the Commission 
carry out its responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act and coincide 
with the current regulatory environment which the Commission instituted 
under Order No. 636 and the restructuring of the natural gas industry.
    Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street N.E., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, 
Information Services Division, (202) 208-1415] or the Office of 
Management and Budget [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (202) 395-3087].

VII. Effective Date

    These regulations are effective March 10, 1997. The Commission has 
determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 10, 1997.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

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

    By the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 284, 
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

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

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

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

    2. In Sec. 284.10, paragraph(b)(1)(iv) is redesignated (b)(1)(v), 
and new paragraph (b)(1)(iv) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 284.10  Standards for Pipeline Business Operations and 
Communications.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards, Principles 
4.1.1 through 4.1.15 and Standards 4.3.1 through 4.3.4 and 4.3.7 
through 4.3.15 (Version 1.0, October 24, 1996); and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-2931 Filed 2-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P