Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 77285

1Standards For Business Practices of Interstate

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

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

Preambles ¶ 31,038 (Jul. 17, 1996), Order No. 587–

B, 62 FR 5521 (Feb. 6, 1997), III FERC Stats. & Regs.

Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,046 (Jan. 30, 1997),

Order No. 587–C, 62 FR 10684 (Mar. 10, 1997), III

FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,050

(Mar. 4, 1997), Order No. 587–G, 63 FR 20072 (Apr.

23, 1998), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations

Preambles ¶ 31,062 (Apr. 16, 1998), Order No. 587–

H, 63 FR 39509 (July 23, 1998), III FERC Stats. &

Regs. Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,063 (July 15,

1998); Order No. 587–I, 63 FR 53565 (Oct. 6, 1998),

III FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles

¶ 31,067 (Sept. 29, 1998), Order No. 587–K, 64 FR

17276 (Apr. 9, 1999), III FERC Stats. & Regs.

Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,072 (Apr. 2, 1999).

securities custody services); insurance

carriers and related activities (including

agents, brokers, and services providers);

investment advisors and managers and

funds, trusts, and other financial

vehicles (including mutual funds,

pension funds, real estate investment

trusts, investors, stock quotation

services, etc.).

(C) Covered types of services. The BE–

82 survey covers the same types of

financial services transactions that are

covered by the BE–80 benchmark

survey, as listed in § 801.11(c).

(D) What to file. (1) the BE–82 survey

consists of Forms BE–82 (A) and BE–

82(B). Before completing a form BE–82

(B), a consolidated U.S. enterprise

(including the top parent and all of its

subsidiaries and parts combined) must

complete Form BE–82 (A) to determine

its reporting status. If the enterprise is

subject to the mandatory reporting

requirement, or if it is exempt from the

mandatory reporting requirement but

chooses to report data voluntarily, either

a separate Form BE–82(B) for each

separately organized financial services

subsidiary or part of a consolidated U.S.

enterprise, or a single BE–82(B)

representing the sum of all covered

transactions by all financial services

subsidiaries or parts of the enterprise

combined must be completed.

(2) Reporters who receive the BE–82

survey from BEA, but that are not

reporting data in either the mandatory

or voluntary section of any BE–82(B),

must return the Exemption Claim,

attached to Form BE–82 (A), to BEA.

(ii) [Reserved]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–31341 Filed 12–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–06–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM96–1–015; Order No. 587–

M]

Standards for Business Practices of

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines

Issued November 30, 2000.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule and notice of

technical conference.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission is amending

§ 284.12 of its regulations governing

standards for conducting business

practices and electronic communication

with interstate natural gas pipelines to

incorporate by reference the most recent

version of the standards, Version 1.4,

promulgated August 31, 1999 and

November 15, 1999 by the Gas Industry

Standards Board (GISB). The

Commission also is announcing a

technical conference by Commission

staff to address the issues raised by a

proposal to require pipelines to permit

shippers to designate and rank the

contracts under which gas will flow on

a pipeline’s system. Version 1.4 of the

GISB standards can be obtained from

GISB at 1100 Louisiana, Suite 3625,

Houston, TX 77002, 713–356–0060,

http://www.gisb.org.

DATES: The rule will become effective

January 10, 2001. The implementation

date for the regulations is May 1, 2001.

Pipelines must make filings to

incorporate Version 1.4 of the GISB

standards into their tariffs not less than

30 days prior to May 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.

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 Markets,

Tariffs, and Rates, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202) 208–1283

Kay Morice, Office of Markets, Tariffs,

and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

0507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Final Rule and Notice of Technical

Conference

The Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (Commission) is amending

§ 284.12 of its regulations governing

standards for conducting business

practices and electronic

communications with interstate natural

gas pipelines. The Commission is

incorporating by reference the most

recent version of the consensus industry

standards promulgated by the Gas

Industry Standards Board (GISB),

Version 1.4. Pipelines are required to

implement these regulations on May 1,

2001. The Commission also is directing

its staff to convene a technical

conference to discuss whether to adopt

the proposed regulation requiring

pipelines to permit shippers to

designate and rank the contracts under

which gas will flow on a pipeline’s

system.

I. Background

In Order Nos. 587, 587–B, 587–C,

587–G, 587–H, 587–I, and 587–K the

Commission adopted regulations to

standardize the business practices and

communication methodologies of

interstate pipelines in order to create a

more integrated and efficient pipeline

grid.1 In those orders, the Commission

incorporated by reference consensus

standards developed by GISB, a private,

consensus standards developer

composed of members from all segments

of the natural gas industry.

On February 23, 2000, GISB filed with

the Commission a letter stating it had

adopted a revised version of its business

practice and communication standards,

Version 1.4. The Version 1.4 standards

include the standards for implementing

pipeline interactive Internet web sites,

which pipelines were required to

implement by June 1, 2000, as well as

standards for critical notices, and

standards for multi-tiered allocations.

GISB also reported on certain issues

on which the Commission had

requested reports in Order No. 587–G.

Of significance here, GISB reported that

its Executive Committee was unable to

reach consensus on standards for crosscontract ranking and that its

confirmations and cross contract

ranking subcommittee is considered

inactive. In a letter dated June 15, 2000,

GISB filed a follow-up report on cross

contract ranking. GISB reports that its

Executive Committee was unable to

achieve consensus with respect to cross

contract ranking due to disagreement on

certain policy issues and that in the

opinion of the Executive Committee no

further progress can be made. GISB

further reported that its Executive

Committee approved standards for title

transfer tracking, but that these

standards are awaiting the development

of the technical standards for

information requirements and technical

mapping.

77286 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

2Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 65 FR 41885 (July 7, 2000), IV FERC

Stats. & Regs. Proposed Regulations ¶ 32,552 (June

30, 2000).

3Those filing comments are listed on Appendix

A along with the abbreviation used throughout the

order.

4The Commission also is amending § 284.12(b)(2)

of its regulations to reflect the change in GISB’s

address.

5See the discussion of compliance procedures in

Section VIII, Implementation Date, at text

accompanying note 20.

6Pipelines previously had been required to

implement the interactive Internet standards in

Version 1.4 by June 1, 2000. See 18 CFR

284.12(c)(3)(i)(B). The following are the changes

from the Version 1.3 standards previously adopted

by the Commission. Standards that have been

revised are: 1.3.24, 3.3.17, 4.2.7, 4.2.8, 4.3.2, 4.3.8,

4.3.9, 4.3.28, 4.3.29, 4.3.34, 5.3.2, and 5.3.30. New

standards are: 0.1.1, 0.1.2, 0.3.1, 1.3.47 through

1.3.63, 1.3.79, 2.3.32 through 2.3.35, 3.3.23 through

3.3.25, 4.1.22 through 4.1.38, 4.2.9 through 4.2.19,

4.3.36 through 4.3.85, 5.2.2, and 5.3.31 through

5.3.42. Revised data sets are: 1.4.1 through 1.4.7,

2.4.1 through 2.4.6, and 3.4.1 through 3.4.4. New

data sets are 5.4.18 and 5.4.19.

7This process first requires a super-majority vote

of 17 out of 25 members of GISB’s Executive

Committee with support from at least two members

from each of the five industry segments—interstate

pipelines, local distribution companies, gas

producers, end-users, and services (including

marketers and computer service providers). For

final approval, 67% of GISB’s general membership

must ratify the standards.

8Pub L. No. 104–113, § 12(d), 110 Stat. 775

(1996), 15 U.S.C. 272 note (1997).

On June 30, 2000, the Commission

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NOPR) proposing to adopt Version 1.4

of the GISB standards and to adopt a

regulation requiring pipelines to permit

shippers to designate and rank the

transportation contracts under which

gas will flow on the pipeline’s system.2

The Commission stated that crosscontract ranking would enable shippers

to use their transportation contracts

more efficiently by enabling them to

allocate gas supplies across their

transportation contracts so that the

shipper can choose the contract which

provides for the most economical

transportation.

The Commission found that while the

GISB record was not entirely clear on

what prevented the adoption of crosscontract ranking standards, there

appeared to be agreement on a method

(entity-to-entity confirmation) by which

such ranking could be achieved. The

disputes apparently were over the

amount of supplemental information

pipelines should provide to shippers

and over the method of confirmation

with producers, independent of the

cross-contract ranking issue. The

Commission solicited comments on

whether these issues were integral to the

cross-contract ranking standard and

whether these issues could be dealt with

on an individual pipeline basis rather

than through a generic rulemaking.

Twenty comments were filed.3

Pipelines supported the use of entity-toentity confirmation, but contended the

Commission should not require the

provision of supplemental information

or working interest owner

confirmations. Local Distribution

Companies (LDCs) and endusers

supported the provision of

supplemental information, with

endusers supporting a confirmation

process based on gas package

identifiers. Producers supported a

confirmation process with producers or

their agents.

II. Discussion

A. Adoption of Version 1.4 of the

Standards

The Commission is incorporating by

reference into its regulations Version 1.4

of GISB’s consensus standards.4

Pipelines must implement these

standards on May 1, 2001, by making

compliance filings as discussed later in

this order.5

The adoption of Version 1.4 of the

standards updates and improves the

standards, particularly in the areas of

communication of critical notices and

multi-tiered allocations.6 GISB

approved the standards under its

consensus procedures.7 No comments

objected to the incorporation of these

standards. As the Commission found in

Order No. 587, adoption of consensus

standards is appropriate because the

consensus process helps ensure the

reasonableness of the standards by

requiring that the standards draw

support from a broad spectrum of all

segments of the industry. Moreover,

since the industry itself has to conduct

business under these standards, the

Commission’s regulations should reflect

those standards that have the widest

possible support. In § 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act (NTT&AA) of 1995,

Congress affirmatively requires federal

agencies to use technical standards

developed by voluntary consensus

standards organizations, like GISB, as

means to carry out policy objectives or

activities.8

Dynegy requests clarification

regarding the implementation of the

standards providing for electronic

notice of critical events affecting

shippers. It asserts that the pipelines

should provide a transition period for

testing the new communication

standards for critical notices before the

pipelines rely solely upon Internet

communication of such notices and

discontinue their current

communication methods. Dynegy

contends that in Order No. 587-G, the

Commission found that Internet

communication could be sufficient

notice to shippers of operational events,

because the shipper could program its

computers to trigger a telephone or

pager. Dynegy is concerned that before

shippers have to rely solely upon

Internet communication, they be given

the time to test whether their software

can trigger a telephone or pager. Dynegy

further requests that pipelines be

required to continue their current

method of communication until the

customers software works satisfactorily.

The Commission agrees that pipelines

should provide shippers with a

reasonable opportunity to test the

Internet communications before the

pipelines dispense with existing

methods of notifying shippers of critical

events. Pipelines, however, will not be

required to continue existing forms of

communication to individual shippers

until the individual shipper has been

able to configure its software correctly.

The shipper should have the

responsibility, within a reasonable time

period, to correct problems with its own

software.

Altra asks that the Commission revise

the implementation date for Version 1.4

of the standards so that the

implementation of Version 1.4, crosscontract ranking, and title transfer

tracking can occur simultaneously. Altra

maintains that implementing such

changes concurrently will be more

economical for software providers as

well as pipelines and their customers.

The Commission understands that

simultaneous implementation may be

more efficient and generally attempts to

adopt a complete version of the GISB

standards at the same time. However, in

this case, the Commission finds that the

benefits from adopting Version 1.4 of

the GISB standard should not be

delayed until an indeterminate date

when standards for cross-contract

ranking and title transfer tracking are

adopted.

B. Cross-Contract Ranking

Cross-contract ranking refers to the

ability of shippers to allocate gas

supplies across transportation contracts

so that the shipper can choose the

contract which provides for the most

economical transportation. Shippers are

doing business using a variety of

contracts, including their own firm and

interruptible contracts, and capacity

release contracts with different terms

and conditions. The ability to allocate

gas supplies among these contracts will

enhance shipper flexibility and better

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 77287

9For example, a shipper may nominate gas from

a single producer under two contracts: a firm

contract with the pipeline and a capacity release

contract which has a minimum volume

commitment. If that shipper receives less gas from

its producer than it has nominated, it might prefer

to allocate more of its gas to the capacity release

contract to satisfy its minimum volume

commitment. Cross-contract ranking would permit

the shipper to allocate its gas to the most

economical contract.

10The Commission previously has resolved

issues on which the GISB members could not reach

consensus, so that GISB could move forward and

develop the necessary technical standards to

implement the Commission’s determination.

Standards For Busines Practices Of Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587–G, 63 FR

20072, 20073, 20075–78 (Apr. 23, 1998), III FERC

Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,062, at

30,663, 30–667–72 (Apr. 16, 1998)(establishing

priority for firm and interruptible transportation in

intra-day nominations).

11See Proposed Standard 1 of CXKR–1 and

CXKR–2 and New Standard S–1 of CXKR–3.

12Production location was defined to include

wellheads, platforms, plant tailgates (excluding

straddle plants) and physcial wellhead aggregation

points. CXKR 1, Proposed Principle 1.

13See comments to Cincinnati, Con Edison,

Distribution, AGA.

enable them to manage their gas supply

and capacity portfolios.9

In Order No. 587–G, the Commission

deferred adoption of regulations

regarding cross-contract ranking to give

GISB an opportunity to develop

standards governing this practice. GISB,

however, was unable to reach consensus

on appropriate standards due to policy

disagreements among the industry

segments, and states that it cannot

proceed without further guidance from

the Commission on the policy questions

presented.10 All the industry segments

appear to agree that developing

standards for cross-contract ranking and

confirmation practices can be of benefit

to the industry. Because the

Commission cannot resolve these issues

based solely on the comments, the

Commission is directing the

Commission staff to establish a

technical conference at which the issues

can be explored in greater detail.

1. Issues Raised by Cross-Contract

Ranking

While the record GISB submitted is

not entirely clear, there did appear to be

agreement that cross-contract ranking

could be achieved through an entity-toentity confirmation process.11

(Appendix B reproduces the set of

standards that were considered, but not

approved, by GISB’s Executive

Committee). Disputes developed over

whether along with entity-to-entity

confirmation pipelines should be

required to provide supplemental

information to shippers and whether

pipelines should confirm with working

interest owners rather than exclusively

with point operators. The two standards

on which agreement could not be

reached are standard 2 and standard 3

of proposal CXKR–2.

Standard 2 states:

As part of the confirmation and scheduling

process upon request, the TSP should make

available, via EBB/EDM, supplemental

information obtained during or derived from

the nomination process. Such supplemental

information, if available, should include the

TSP’s Service Requester Contract and, based

upon the TSP’s business practice may also,

on a mutually agreeable basis, include (1) a

derivable indicator characterizing the type of

contract and service being provided, (2)

Downstream Contract Identifier and/or (3)

Service Requester’s Package ID.

Standard 3 states:

Absent mutual agreement to the contrary

between the TSP and the Operator for

confirmations at a production location,12 the

TSP should support the fact that the operator

will confirm with the TSP to only the

upstream entity level. These upstream

entities should either confirm or nominate (at

the TSP’s determination) at an entity level

with the TSP.

In the NOPR, the Commission

proposed to require pipelines to permit

shippers to designate and rank the

transportation contracts under which

gas will flow on each pipeline’s system.

The Commission generally proposed

that such ranking would occur based on

the entity-to-entity confirmation

standards included in all the GISB

proposals. The Commission, however,

solicited comment on whether there is

a need for a uniform generic standard

setting forth additional, limited

information pipelines should provide to

local distribution companies or shippers

and whether the need for additional

information applies to all pipelines or is

limited only to certain pipelines that

currently provide such additional

information to LDCs. With respect to the

standard regarding production

confirmation, the Commission asked for

comment addressing the need for

confirmations at the working interest

level, the costs and benefits of adopting

such a requirement for pipelines,

shippers, and the overall efficiency of

the pipeline grid, and whether a

uniform requirement is necessary or

whether pipelines should be permitted

to choose the method of confirmation

with producers that best fits their

systems.

2. Comments

All commenters generally support the

concept of cross-contract ranking. They

differ again on the necessity of requiring

supplemental information and on

confirmation at receipt points. Dynegy

and Altra are indifferent to whether any

requirements for supplemental

information or producer confirmation

are adopted. Altra contends that some of

the other issues, such as working

interest owner confirmation, are

unrelated to the cross-contract ranking

issue.

The LDCs 13 that filed comments

contend that provision of supplemental

information concerning the type of

contract, which establishes scheduling

priority, is necessary for LDCs to plan

their system usage, particularly in light

of the requirements of retail

unbundling. They contend, for instance,

that LDCs need to know the priority of

gas nominated to their systems so they

can plan for the possibility of losing gas

supplies during peak periods if

interruptible or secondary firm

nominations are limited. They further

contend that this information on

priority is needed to satisfy the

requirements of some state unbundling

programs that marketers have primary

firm capacity for deliveries to LDC citygates. Con Edison, for instance, raises

the question of how entity-to-entity

confirmation will permit LDCs to

confirm gas deliveries in a situation

when two behind-the-city-gate

marketers both purchase gas from a

third marketer at a downstream market

center. It contends that without contract

information, the LDC would not be able

to match up the information from the

marketer delivering the gas to the

market center and the two behind-thecity-gate marketers. Distribution argues

that the necessary information could be

provided through a capacity-type

indicator, which would not be

burdensome for the pipelines to process.

In reply comments, Distribution

contends that based on the comments

filed, the Commission should convene a

technical conference to provide further

explanation of why LDCs need

supplemental contract information and

why providing such information should

not be burdensome for the pipelines.

The End User Group supports the

concept of cross-contract ranking but

claims that the NOPR proposal has two

problems: it does not require pipelines

to follow the rankings provided by

shippers; and it does not provide

shippers with the information necessary

to determine what packages of gas

actually flowed. Rather than aggregating

information, as in the entity-to-entity

confirmation method, the End Users

contend that the confirmation process

should be further disaggregated by

confirming on a package identification

77288 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

14The GISB standards define a package identifier

as ‘‘a way to differentiate between discrete business

transactions.’’ Nominations Related Standards 1.2.5,

18 CFR 284.12(b)(i).

15See Comments by INGAA, Enron, ANR,

Columbia Gulf, Kinder Morgan, Koch, Panhandle,

Williams, Williston Basin.

basis.14 They contend that frequently a

customer will be receiving multiple

natural gas packages from a single seller

(pursuant to different contracts) and the

buyer and the seller have diametrically

opposed interests. The seller wants the

most expensive gas to have the highest

rank, while the buyer seeks to give it the

lowest. The End Users contend that

unless the confirmation process

provides information as to which

package actually flows, the shipper

cannot accurately determine the

package for which it must pay.

The producers (NGSA and IPAA)

support a confirmation standard that

would require pipelines to confirm with

producers or their agents, rather than

the standard discussed at GISB that

would have required confirmation with

all working interest owners. They

contend that confirming with producers

will enhance efficiency by eliminating

the inefficiency of routing all

adjustments through a point operator, as

is done today. They also maintain that

confirmation with producers will better

safeguard commercially sensitive

information, because producers will no

longer have to route their sensitive

nomination information through point

operators that may have competing

financial or business interests. NGSA

maintains that confirmation with

producers or their agents would be far

less burdensome than confirmation with

working interest owners.

While the pipelines generally support

the cross-contract ranking standards

proposed by the Commission, they

contend the Commission should not

require pipelines to provide the

supplemental contractual information

requested by the LDCs or new standards

for producer confirmation.15 They

maintain that requiring supplemental

information will unnecessarily

complicate the confirmation process

and the LDCs have not established the

need for such information. Enron, for

example, contends that the entity-toentity confirmation standard will help

to streamline the confirmation process,

but that requiring the provision of

supplemental information will defeat

the very purpose of attempting to

streamline the process. Williston Basin

maintains that it understands only a few

LDCs seek this supplemental

information in order to appease state

regulatory authorities and that none of

the LDCs on its system require the

provision of such information. The

pipelines also contend that they are not

all in position to confirm gas supplies

with individual working interest

owners.

3. Establishment of a Technical

Conference

All of the commenters find that

development of standards for crosscontract ranking could benefit the

industry by giving shippers more

flexibility in using their capacity. It also

appears from the comments that since

the standards were debated at GISB,

some industry members have clarified

or revised their proposals or put forward

new proposals. In addition, some of the

comments appear to go beyond the

limited issue of cross-ranking, but link

the cross-contract ranking issue with

other issues relating to standardization

of the confirmation process.

Given the issues raised and the new

proposals included in some of the

comments, the Commission needs

additional information to determine

how best to proceed. It is, therefore,

directing staff to convene a technical

conference in which the industry and

staff can discuss these issues to clarify

what is in dispute and to determine if

common ground can be found. The

technical conference will be transcribed

so that the Commission and those who

cannot attend can be apprised of the

discussion. Staff also will establish a

schedule for further comments to be

filed based on the discussion at the

technical conference.

Among the issues that should be

considered at the conference are:

• How confirmation takes place using

entity-to-entity confirmation and

contract confirmation.

• How package identification

currently is used in nomination and

confirmation processes.

• How the issues relating to crosscontract ranking differ depending on the

nomination model used by the pipeline,

i.e, pathed, non-pathed, or pathed nonthreaded.

• Whether cross-contract ranking can

be achieved efficiently without entityto-entity confirmation.

• Whether verification of a shipper’s

contractual priority needs to occur on a

daily basis through the confirmation

process or whether priority can be

verified in other ways, for example, by

examining the shipper’s contract or

using the Index of Customers.

• Whether a uniform resolution of the

need for supplemental information is

needed or whether this issue can be

resolved on a case-by-case basis, for

example, by requiring those pipelines

that previously provided contract

information to continue that practice,

while not imposing additional burdens

on other pipelines.

• Whether, if confirmation of

transportation priority is needed, a

priority indicator, as Distribution

suggests, would be a reasonably burdenfree method of transmitting the

information.

• Whether entity-to-entity

confirmation has value in simplifying

the confirmation process or whether

further disaggregation to the gas package

identification level is necessary.

• Whether gas package identification

would protect customers against the

possibility that the seller will allocate

all gas supplies to the highest price

contract or whether such protection can

be better achieved through the contract

between buyer and seller. For instance,

even if confirmation was at the package

identification level, the seller would

still rank the most expensive package

first.

• Whether the proposal to limit

confirmations to producers, rather than

working interest owners, meaningfully

reduces the confirmation burden.

• Whether producers can use

independent third-parties, as opposed to

commercially interested point operators,

to handle the confirmation process with

respect to that information considered

the most sensitive.

III. Notice of Use of Voluntary

Consensus Standards

Office of Management and Budget

Circular A–119 (§ 11) (February 10,

1998) provides that federal agencies

should publish a request for comment in

a Final Rule when the agency is seeking

to issue or revise a regulation that

contains a standard identifying whether

a voluntary consensus standard or a

government-unique standard is being

proposed. In this final rule, the

Commission is incorporating by

reference Version 1.4 (August 31 and

November 15, 1999 ) of the voluntary

consensus standards developed by

GISB.

IV. Information Collection Statement

OMB’s regulations in 5 CFR 1320.11

require that it approve certain reporting

and recordkeeping requirements

(collections of information) imposed by

an agency. Upon approval of a

collection of information, OMB 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 77289

16Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897

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

1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987). 17 18 CFR 380.4

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

380.4(a)(27).

19 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

The collections of information related

to this Final Rule fall under the existing

reporting requirements of: FERC–545,

Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (NonFormal) (OMB Control No. 1902–0154)

and FERC–549C, Standards for Business

Practices of Interstate Natural Gas

Pipelines (OMB Control No. 1902–

0174). The following burden estimates

are related only to this rule and include

the costs of complying with GISB’s

version 1.4 standards. The burden

estimates are primarily related to startup for implementing the latest version

of the standards and data sets and will

not be on-going costs.

Public Reporting Burden: (Estimated

Annual Burden)

Data collection Number of

respondents

Number of responses per

respondent

Estimated burden hours per

response

Total annual

hours

FERC–545 ....................................................................................................... 93 1 38 3,534

FERC–549C ..................................................................................................... 93 1 1,766 164,238

The total annual hours for collection (including recordkeeping) are estimated to be 167,772. The average annualized

cost for all 93 respondents is projected to be the following:

FERC–545 FERC–549C

Annualized Capital/ Startup Costs ........................................................................................................................... $195,996 $9,108,655

Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance) ...................................................................................................... 0 0

Total Annualized Costs .................................................................................................................................... 195,996 9,108,655

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NOPR), the Commission proposed to

adopt a regulation requiring pipelines to

permit cross-contract ranking. However,

this rule does not adopt that proposed

regulation but instead directs staff to

convene a technical conference to

discuss whether to adopt the proposed

regulation. For this reason, the burden

estimates have been adjusted to remove

the burden included in the NOPR for

complying with the Commission’s

proposed regulation requiring pipelines

to permit cross-contract ranking. The

burden estimate for FERC–545 is

unchanged because the exclusion of

cross-contract ranking will not create a

significant difference in the original

burden estimate for tariff filings.

However, the burden estimate for

FERC–549C has been reduced to

eliminate the burden estimate

associated with the cross-contract

ranking proposal in the NOPR.

The Commission regulations adopted

in this rule are necessary to further the

process begun in Order No. 587 of

creating a more efficient and integrated

pipeline grid by standardizing the

business practices and electronic

communications of interstate pipelines.

Adoption of these regulations will

update the Commission’s regulations

relating to business practices and

communication protocols to conform to

the latest version, Version 1.4, approved

by GISB.

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. The

information required in this Final Rule

will be reported directly to the industry

users and later be subject to audit by the

Commission. This information also will

be retained for a three year period. The

implementation of these data

requirements will help the Commission

carry out its responsibilities under the

Natural Gas Act and conforms to the

Commission’s plan for efficient

information collection, communication,

and management within the natural gas

industry.

Interested persons may obtain

information on the reporting

requirements by contacting the

following: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426 [Attention:

Michael Miller, Office of the Chief

Information Officer, phone (202)208–

1415, fax (202)208–2425, E-mail

mike.miller@ferc.fed.us]; or the Office of

Management and Budget [Attention:

Desk Officer for the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, phone 202–

395–3087, fax (202)395–7285].

V. Environmental Analysis

The Commission is required to

prepare an Environmental Assessment

or an Environmental Impact Statement

for any action that may have a

significant adverse effect on the human

environment.16 The Commission has

categorically excluded certain actions

from these requirements as not having a

significant effect on the human

environment.17 The actions taken here

fall within categorical exclusions in the

Commission’s regulations for rules that

are clarifying, corrective, or procedural,

for information gathering, analysis, and

dissemination, and for sales, exchange,

and transportation of natural gas that

requires no construction of facilities.18

Therefore, an environmental assessment

is unnecessary and has not been

prepared in this final rule.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Certification

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA)19 generally requires a description

and analysis of final rules that will have

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The regulations adopted here impose

requirements only on interstate

pipelines, which are not small

businesses, and, these requirements are,

in fact, designed to reduce the difficulty

of dealing with pipelines by all

customers, including small businesses.

Accordingly, pursuant to § 605(b) of the

RFA, the Commission hereby certifies

that the regulations proposed herein

will not have a significant adverse

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

VII. Document Availability

In addition to publishing the full text

of this document in the Federal

Register, the Commission provides all

interested persons an opportunity to

view and/or print the contents of this

document via the Internet through

FERC’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.fed.us) and in FERC’s Public

Reference Room during normal business

hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time)

at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A,

Washington, DC 20426.

77290 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

20See Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation,

77 FERC ¶ 61,175, at 61,646 (1996) (pipelines

incorporating standards by reference in their tariffs

must include number and version).

21 In filing to implement Version 1.4, pipelines

need to change all references to GISB standards in

their tariffs to Version 1.4. The version number

applies to all standards contained in GISB’s Version

1.4 Standards Manuals, including standards that

have not changed from prior versions.

From FERC’s Home Page on the

Internet, this information is available in

both the Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS) and the Records and

Information Management System

(RIMS).

—CIPS provides access to the texts of

formal documents issued by the

Commission since November 14,

1994.

—CIPS can be accessed using the CIPS

link or the Energy Information Online

icon. The full text of this document is

available on CIPS in ASCII and

WordPerfect 8.0 format for viewing,

printing, and/or downloading.

—RIMS contains images of documents

submitted to and issued by the

Commission after November 16, 1981.

Documents from November 1995 to

the present can be viewed and printed

from FERC’s Home Page using the

RIMS link or the Energy Information

Online icon. Descriptions of

documents back to November 16,

1981, are also available from RIMSon-the-Web; requests for copies of

these and other older documents

should be submitted to the Public

Reference Room.

User assistance is available for RIMS,

CIPS, and the Website during normal

business hours from our Help line at

(202) 208–2222 (E-Mail to

WebMaster@ferc.fed.us) or the Public

Reference Room at (202) 208–1371 (EMail to

public.referenceroom@ferc.fed.us).

During normal business hours,

documents can also be viewed and/or

printed in FERC’s Public Reference

Room, where RIMS, CIPS, and the FERC

Website are available. User assistance is

also available.

VIII. Implementation Date

Pipelines must implement these

regulations on May 1, 2001. Pipelines

must file revised tariff sheets to

incorporate Version 1.4 of the standards

into their tariffs since their tariffs

incorporated by reference an older

version number.20 To the extent

pipelines have individual tariff

provisions based on these standards,

pipelines also will have to conform their

tariffs to the new standards.21 The tariff

changes must be filed not less than 30

days prior to the date for implementing

Version 1.4 of the standards.

IX. Effective Date

These regulations are effective

January 10, 2001. The Commission has

determined, with the concurrence of the

Administrator of the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs of

OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’

as defined in Section 351 of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

Continental shelf, Incorporation by

reference, Natural gas, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

By the Commission.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Commission proposes to amend 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 § 284.12

a. Paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) are

revised to read as set forth below.

b. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the

words ‘‘1100 Louisiana, Suite 4925’’ and

add, in their place, the words ‘‘1100

Louisiana, Suite 3625’’.

§ 284.12 Standards for pipeline business

operations and communications.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Nominations Related Standards

(Version 1.4, August 31, 1999);

(ii) Flowing Gas Related Standards

(Version 1.4, August 31, 1999) with the

exception of Standards 2.3.29 and

2.3.30;

(iii) Invoicing Related Standards

(Version 1.4, August 31, 1999);

(iv) Electronic Delivery Mechanism

Related Standards (Version 1.4,

November 15, 1999) with the exception

of Standard 4.3.4; and

(v) Capacity Release Related

Standards (Version 1.4, August 31,

1999).

* * * * *

Note: The following Appendices will not

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations

Appendix A

COMMENTS FILED—DOCKET NO. RM96–1–015

Commenter Abbreviation

Altra Energy Technologies, Inc. .................................................................................................................................................. Altra

American Gas Association .......................................................................................................................................................... AGA

ANR Pipeline Company and Colorado Interstate Gas Company ............................................................................................... ANR

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Union Light, Heat and Power Company, and Lawrenceburg Gas Company .................. Cincinnati

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company ...................................................................................................................................... Columbia Gulf

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc ...................................................... Con Edison

Duke Energy Gas Transmission (Algonquin Gas Transmission Duke Company, East Tennessee Natural Gas Company,

and Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation).

Duke

Dynegy Marketing and Trade ...................................................................................................................................................... Dynegy

El Paso Energy Corporation Interstate Pipelines (El Paso Natural Gas Company, Gulf States Transmission Corporation,

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company, Mojave Pipeline Company, Southern Natural Gas Company, and Tennessee

Gas Pipeline Company).

El Paso Energy

End User Group (Arizona Public Service Company, The Boeing Company, Defense Energy Support Center, Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership, Midwest Energy, Inc., Salt River Project, Phelps Dodge Corporation, and Tennessee Valley Authority).End User Group

Enron Interstate Pipelines ........................................................................................................................................................... Enron

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 77291

COMMENTS FILED—DOCKET NO. RM96–1–015—Continued

Commenter Abbreviation

Independent Petroleum Association of America ......................................................................................................................... IPAA

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America ........................................................................................................................... INGAA

Kinder Morgan Interstate Pipelines (Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America and Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC).Kinder Morgan

Koch Gateway Pipeline Company .............................................................................................................................................. Koch

National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation ................................................................................................................................ Distribution

Natural Gas Supply Association ................................................................................................................................................. NGSA

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company and Trunkline Gas Company ..................................................................................... Panhandle

Williams Gas Pipeline Company (Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc., Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Cove Point LNG Limited Partnership, and Kern River

Gas Transmission Company).

Williams

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company .............................................................................................................................. Williston Basin

Appendix B

Cross-Contract Ranking Standards GISB

Considered, But Did Not Adopt

Standards Considered at the November 11,

1999 GISB Executive Committee Meeting

CXKR–1

S1 Proposed Standard 1

Absent mutual agreement to the contrary,

the standard level of confirmation should be

entity to entity.

S2 Revised Proposed Standard 2

As part of the confirmation and scheduling

process between a Transportation Service

Provider (TSP) and a Local Distribution

Company (LDC), upon request by the LDC,

the TSP should make available, via EBB/

EDM, supplemental information obtained

during or derived from the nomination

process necessary for the LDC to meet its

statutory and/or regulatory obligations. Such

supplemental information, if available,

should include the TSP’s Service Requester

Contract and, based upon the TSP’s business

practice may also, on a mutually agreeable

basis, include (1) a derivable indicator

characterizing the type of contract and

service being provided, (2) Downstream

Contract Identifier and/or (3) Service

Requester’s Package ID .

S3 Proposed Standard 3

Absent mutual agreement to the contrary

between the TSP and the Operator for

confirmations at a production location, the

TSP should support the fact that the operator

will confirm with the TSP to only the

upstream entity level. These upstream

entities should either confirm or nominate (at

the TSP’s determination) at an entity level

with the TSP.

D1 Proposed Definition 1

Production locations includes wellheads,

platforms, plant tailgates (excluding straddle

plants) and physical wellhead aggregation

points.

S4 Proposed Standard 4

When nominated quantities exceed

available capacity, the Transportation Service

Provider (TSP) should first utilize its tariff

requirements to assign capacity to each

service level for each Service Requester (SR).

The TSP should then use the SR’s provided

scheduling ranks to determine how the

available quantities should be distributed

within a single service level. The SR’s

provided scheduling ranks (as applicable)

should be used as follows:

For reductions identified at or upstream of

the constraint location, the order for

application of ranks is Receipt Rank

(Priority), Upstream Rank (Priority), Delivery

Rank (Priority), Downstream Rank (Priority).

For reductions identified at or downstream

of the constraint location, the order for

application of ranks is Delivery Rank

(Priority), Downstream Rank (Priority),

Receipt Rank (Priority), Upstream Rank

(Priority).

S5 Proposed Standard 5

When applying a confirmation reduction to

an entity at a location, the Transportation

Service Provider (TSP) should use the

Service Requester’s (SR’s) scheduling ranks

provided on all nominations for that location

and entity to determine the appropriate

nomination(s) to be reduced, except where

superseded by the TSP’s tariff, general terms

and conditions, or contractual obligations.

The SR’s provided scheduling ranks (as

applicable) should be used as follows:

For receipt side reductions, the order for

application of ranks is Upstream Rank

(Priority), Receipt Rank (Priority), Delivery

Rank (Priority), and Downstream Rank

(Priority).

For delivery side reductions, the order for

application of ranks is Downstream Rank

(Priority), Delivery Rank (Priority), Receipt

Rank (Priority), and Upstream Rank

(Priority).

P1 Proposed Principle 1

In order to effectuate cross contract

ranking, the level of confirmation at a

location should occur at the entity to entity

level.

S6 Revised Proposed Standard 6

Transportation Service Providers should

utilize Standard 1.3.7 for ranks submitted in

a nomination.

CXKR–2

Retain all standards in CXKR–1 with the

exception of Standard S2 which would be

revised to read as follows:

S2 Amended Revised Proposed Standard 2

As part of the confirmation and scheduling

process upon request, the TSP should make

available, via EBB/EDM, supplemental

information obtained during or derived from

the nomination process. Such supplemental

information, if available, should include the

TSP’s Service Requester Contract and, based

upon the TSP’s business practice may also,

on a mutually agreeable basis, include (1) a

derivable indicator characterizing the type of

contract and service being provided, (2)

Downstream Contract Identifier and/or (3)

Service Requester’s Package ID.

CXKR–3

P1 New Principle

In order to effectuate cross contract

ranking, the level of confirmation at a

location should occur at the entity-to-entity

level.

S1 New Standard

The standard level of confirmation should

be entity to entity.

S4 New Standard

When nominated quantities exceed

available capacity on a Transportation

Service Provider’s (TSP’s) system, such TSP

should first utilize its tariff requirements to

assign capacity to each service level for each

Service Requester (SR). The TSP should then

use the SR’s provided scheduling ranks as

provided in the SR’s nomination to

determine how the available quantities

should be distributed within a single service

level.

The SR’s provided scheduling ranks (as

applicable) should be used as follows:

For reductions identified at or upstream of

the constraint location, the order for

application of ranks is Receipt Rank

(Priority), Upstream Rank (Priority), Delivery

Rank (Priority), Downstream Rank (Priority).

For reductions identified at or downstream

of the constraint location, the order for

application of ranks is Delivery Rank

(Priority), Downstream Rank (Priority),

Receipt Rank (Priority), Upstream Rank

(Priority).

S5 New Standard

When applying a confirmation reduction to

an entity (Service Requester (SR)) at a

location, the Transportation Service Provider

(TSP) should use such SR’s scheduling ranks

as provided on that SR’s nominations at that

location to determine the appropriate

nominations(s) to be reduced, except where

superceded by the TSP’s tariff, general terms

and conditions, or contractual obligations.

77292 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The SR’s provided scheduling ranks (as

applicable) should be used as follows:

For receipt side reductions, the order for

application of ranks is Upstream Rank

(Priority), Receipt Rank (Priority), Delivery

Rank (Priority), Downstream Rank (Priority).

For delivery side reductions, the order for

application of ranks is Downstream Rank

(Priority), Delivery Rank (Priority), Receipt

Rank (Priority), Upstream Rank (Priority).

[FR Doc. 00–30979 Filed 12–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Part 42, 47, 56, 57, and 77

RIN: 1219–AA47

Hazard Communication (HazCom)

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health

Administration (MSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing and

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: MSHA is announcing a public

hearing regarding the Agency’s interim

final rule on Hazard Communication

and extending the comment period. The

hazard communication requirements

were published in the Federal Register

on October 3, 2000 (65 FR 59048). The

hearing will be held under section 101

of the Federal Mine Safety and Health

Act of 1977.

DATES: The hearing will be held on

December 14, 2000. The hearing will

last from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but will

continue into the evening if necessary.

The comment period is extended until

December 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at

the following location: Department of

Labor, Office of Administrative Law

Judges Courtroom, 800 K Street N.W.,

Suite 400N, Washington, D.C.

Comments may be transmitted by

electronic mail, fax, or mail. Comments

by electronic mail must be clearly

identified as such and sent to this e-mail

address: comments@MSHA.gov.

Comments by fax must be clearly

identified as such and sent to: MSHA,

Office of Standards, Regulations, and

Variances, 703–235–5551. Mail

comments should be clearly identified

as such and sent to MSHA, Office of

Standards, Regulations, and Variances,

4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631,

Arlington, VA 22203–1984. Interested

persons are encouraged to supplement

written comments with computer files

or disks; please contact the Agency with

any questions about format.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Meyer, Director; MSHA Office

of Standards, Regulations, and

Variances; phone 703–235–1910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We

request that you notify us of your

intention to make an oral presentation

prior to the hearing date, but it is not

required that you do so. The hearing

will be conducted in an informal

manner by a panel of MSHA officials.

Although formal rules of evidence or

cross examination will not apply, the

presiding official may exercise

discretion to ensure the orderly progress

of the hearing and may exclude

irrelevant or unduly repetitious material

and questions.

The hearing will begin with an

opening statement from MSHA,

followed by an opportunity for members

of the public to make oral presentations.

The hearing panel may ask questions of

speakers. At the discretion of the

presiding official, the time allocated to

speakers for their presentations may be

limited. In the interest of conducting a

productive hearing, MSHA will

schedule speakers in a manner that

allows all points of view to be heard as

effectively as possible.

A verbatim transcript of the

proceeding will be prepared and made

part of the rulemaking record. A copy of

the hearing transcript will be made

available for public review.

MSHA will accept additional written

comments and other appropriate data

for the record from any interested party,

including those not presenting oral

statements. Written comments and data

submitted to MSHA will be included in

the rulemaking record. To allow for the

submission of post-hearing comments,

the comment period is extended and the

record will remain open until December

19, 2000.

Dated: December 7, 2000.

J. Davitt McAteer,

Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and

Health.

[FR Doc. 00–31543 Filed 12–7–00; 1:20 pm]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. RM 2000–3B]

Public Performance of Sound

Recordings: Definition of a Service

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is

amending its regulatory definition of a

‘‘Service’’ for purposes of the statutory

license governing the public

performance of sound recordings by

means of digital audio transmissions in

order to clarify that transmissions of a

broadcast signal over a digital

communications network, such as the

Internet, are not exempt from copyright

liability under section 114(d)(1)(A) of

the Copyright Act.

DATES: Effective December 11, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or

Tanya M. Sandros, Senior Attorney,

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel,

P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station,

Washington, D.C. 20024. Telephone:

(202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 252–

3423.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Procedural History

On March 16, 2000, the Copyright

Office published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) seeking comment

on whether the transmission of an AM/

FM radio broadcast signal over the

Internet by the broadcaster that

originates the AM/FM signal is exempt

from copyright liability under the

exemption to the digital performance

right in sound recordings set forth in

section 114 of the Copyright Act, title 17

of the United States Code. 65 FR 14227

(March 16, 2000). The Office initiated

this rulemaking proceeding in response

to a petition from the Recording

Industry Association of America

(‘‘RIAA’’).

In its petition, RIAA asked the Office

to adopt a rule ‘‘clarifying that a

broadcaster’s transmission of its AM or

FM radio station over the Internet . . .

is not exempt from copyright liability

under section 114(d)(1)(A).’’ RIAA also

believes that ‘‘until the Office rules, the

parties will not agree on who qualifies

for the Section 114 performance

license.’’ Petition at 7.

The Office agreed with RIAA’s

observation and postponed the pending

rate adjustment proceeding, the purpose

of which is to set the rates and terms for

the public performance of a sound

recording by means of digital audio

transmissions under the section 114

statutory license and to establish the

rates and terms for the making of an

ephemeral recording in accordance with

the section 112 statutory license. See 63

FR 65555 (November 27, 1998); 64 FR

52107 (September 7, 1999). The Office

took this action because it recognized

that the outcome of the rulemaking

would have the effect of deciding

whether the rates and terms set in that