Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5521

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process required

by Executive Order 12866.

This rule designates Atlanta

Hartsfield International Airport as a port

of embarkation and three facilities in

Georgia—the Atlanta Equine Complex

in Atlanta, Tumbleweed Farm in

Mableton, and Southern Cross Ranch in

Madison—as approved export

inspection facilities. The Atlanta Equine

Complex and Tumbleweed Farm are

located in the immediate vicinity of the

Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport.

The location of Southern Cross Ranch

less than 60 miles from the airport, or

approximately an hour’s driving time,

offers businesses within the Madison,

GA, area a convenient alternative

location at which animals destined for

export could receive inspections.

We do not expect that designating

these three facilities as export

inspection facilities and Atlanta

Hartsfield International Airport as a port

of embarkation will have any adverse

impact on businesses. These actions

should benefit exporters of animals in

the region by reducing their animal

transportation costs. Currently, the

closest designated ports of embarkation

from which exporters in Georgia may

ship their animals are in Kentucky and

Florida. From past export activity in the

area, we anticipate that, at least initially,

a yearly average of about 50

exportations of animals, mostly horses

and some goats, will take place through

Atlanta.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 91

Animal diseases, Animal welfare,

Exports, Livestock, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 91 is

amended as follows:

PART 91—INSPECTION AND

HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK FOR

EXPORTATION

1. The authority citation for part 91

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 105, 112, 113, 114a,

120, 121, 134b, 134f, 136, 136a, 612, 613,

614, and 618; 46 U.S.C. 466a, 466b; 49 U.S.C.

1509(d); 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

2. In § 91.14, paragraphs (a)(3)

through (a)(17) are redesignated as

paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(18), and a

new paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as

follows.

§ 91.14 Ports of embarkation and export

inspection facilities.

(a) * * *

(3) Georgia.

(i) Atlanta Hartsfield International

Airport.

(A) Atlanta Equine Complex, 1270

Woolman Place, Atlanta, GA 30354,

(404) 767–1700.

(B) Tumbleweed Farm (horses only),

1677 Buckner Road, Mableton, GA

30059, (770) 948–3556.

(C) Southern Cross Ranch (horses

only), 1670 Bethany Church Road,

Madison, GA 30650, (706) 342–8027.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of

January 1997.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–2959 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

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.
5522 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053

(Jul. 26, 1996), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations

Preambles ¶ 31,039 (Jul. 17, 1996), reh’g denied, 61

FR 55208 (Oct. 25, 1996), 77 FERC ¶ 61,061 (Oct.

21, 1996).

2See Standards 4.3.1–4.3.4 and 4.3.7–4.3.15.

3Standards for Business Practices of Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 61 FR 58790 (Nov. 19, 1996), IV FERC

Stats. & Regs. Proposed Regulations ¶ 35,521 (Nov.

13, 1996).

4The NOPR also gave notice of a staff technical

conference to discuss the future direction of

standardization and disputed issues.

5See 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, http://www.pcweek.com/

@netweek/1007/07set.html (Jan.9, 1997).

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. 587,1 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.

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).2

On November 13, 1996, the

Commission issued a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 3

proposing to adopt all the standards

GISB submitted on September 30, 1996.4

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.

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.5 The

protocols adopted in this rule promise

to provide the gas industry with the

ability to use automated computer-tocomputer communications to more

efficiently conduct crucial and timesensitive 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.

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,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 5523

6This 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.

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).6

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-tocomputer exchanges of information.

They argue that the Web browser

approach is more appropriate for oneway 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
5524 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

7What 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.

8 61 FR at 39066–67; III FERC Stats. & Regs.

Preambles at 30,076–78.

9 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

10Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897

(Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles

1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).

11 18 CFR 380.4.

12See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5),

380.4(a)(27).

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, lowerfunctionality 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 thirdparty 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.7 Thus,

pipelines and their customers should

consider, if they have not already, failsafe 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.

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, 1997.8 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.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Certification

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) 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.

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.10 The Commission has

categorically excluded certain actions

from these requirements as not having a

significant effect on the human

environment.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.12

Therefore, an environmental assessment

is unnecessary and has not been

prepared in this rulemaking.

VI. Information Collection Statement

OMB’s regulations in 5 CFR 1320.11

require that it approve certain reporting

and recordkeeping requirements
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 284.10, paragraph(b)(1)(iv) is

redesignated (b)(1)(v), and new

paragraph (b)(1)(iv) is added to read as

follows:

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 520

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs;

Amoxicillin Bolus and Soluble Powder

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

animal drug regulations to codify two

previously approved supplemental new

animal drug applications (NADA’s) filed

by Pfizer, Inc. The supplemental

NADA’s provide for the use of

amoxicillin boluses and soluble powder

in preruminating calves including veal

calves.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dianne T. McRae, Center for Veterinary

Medicine (HFV–102), Food and Drug

Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,

Rockville, MD 20855, 301–594–1623.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pfizer,

Inc., 235 East 42d St., New York, NY

10017, is sponsor of NADA 55–087

Amoxi-Bol (amoxicillin trihydrate)

bolus and NADA 55–088 Amoxi-Sol

(amoxicillin trihydrate) soluble powder

which provide for treatment of bacterial

enteritis when due to susceptible

Escherichia coli in preruminating calves

including veal calves. Use is by or on

the order of a licensed veterinarian.

These supplemental NADA’s were

approved on October 7, 1993, but the

regulations were inadvertently not

amended at that time to reflect these

approvals. The regulations are now

being amended in §§ 520.88d(d) and

520.88e(d) (21 CFR 520.88d(d) and

520.88e(d)) to reflect the approvals. In

addition, the term ‘‘nonruminating’’ is

being changed to ‘‘preruminating’’ to

better describe the type of animal being

treated.

The supplemental approvals provided

for further clarification of the class of

animals indicated for treatment. No

additional safety or effectiveness data

were required. Therefore, a freedom of

information (FOI) summary is not

required.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520

Animal drugs.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21

CFR part 520 is amended as follows:

PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM

NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 520 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 512 of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b).

2. Section 520.88d is amended by

revising the heading for paragraph (d),

paragraph (d)(2), and the third sentence

in paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:

§ 520.88d Amoxicillin trihydrate soluble

powder.

* * * * *

(d) Conditions of use. Preruminating

calves including veal calves—

* * * * *

(2) Indications for use. Treatment of

bacterial enteritis when due to

susceptible Escherichia coli in

preruminating calves including veal

calves.