Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19211

(4) Where circumstances demonstrate

that a case is no longer suitable for

resolution using the express option,

GAO shall establish a new schedule for

submissions by the parties.

(e) GAO may use flexible alternative

procedures to promptly and fairly

resolve a protest, including establishing

an accelerated schedule and/or issuing

a summary decision.

(f) GAO may conduct status

conferences by telephone or in person

with all parties participating in a protest

to promote the expeditious development

and resolution of the protest.

§ 21.11 Effect of judicial proceedings.

(a) A protester must immediately

advise GAO of any court proceeding

which involves the subject matter of a

pending protest and must file with GAO

copies of all relevant court documents.

(b) GAO will dismiss any protest

where the matter involved is the subject

of litigation before a court of competent

jurisdiction, or where the matter

involved has been decided on the merits

by a court of competent jurisdiction.

GAO may, at the request of a court,

issue an advisory opinion on a bid

protest issue that is before the court. In

these cases, unless a different schedule

is established, the times provided in this

part for filing the agency report

(§ 21.3(c)), filing comments on the

report (§ 21.3(i)), holding a hearing and

filing comments (§ 21.7), and issuing a

decision (§ 21.9) shall apply.

§ 21.12 Distribution of decisions.

(a) Unless it contains protected

information, a copy of a decision shall

be provided to the protester, any

intervenors, the head of the contracting

activity responsible for the protested

procurement, and the senior

procurement executive of each Federal

agency involved; a copy shall also be

made available to the public. A copy of

a decision containing protected

information shall be provided only to

the contracting agency and to

individuals admitted to any protective

order issued in the protest. A public

version omitting the protected

information shall be prepared wherever

possible.

(b) Decisions are available from GAO

by electronic means.

§ 21.13 Nonstatutory protests.

(a) GAO will consider protests

concerning awards of subcontracts by or

for a Federal agency, sales by a Federal

agency, or procurements by agencies of

the government other than Federal

agencies as defined in § 21.0(c) if the

agency involved has agreed in writing to

have protests decided by GAO.

(b) The provisions of this part shall

apply to nonstatutory protests except for

the provision of § 21.8(d) pertaining to

recommendations for the payment of

costs. The provision for the withholding

of award and the suspension of contract

performance, 31 U.S.C. 3553 (c) and (d),

also does not apply to nonstatutory

protests.

§ 21.14 Request for reconsideration.

(a) The protester, any intervenor, and

any Federal agency involved in the

protest may request reconsideration of a

bid protest decision. GAO will not

consider a request for reconsideration

that does not contain a detailed

statement of the factual and legal

grounds upon which reversal or

modification is deemed warranted,

specifying any errors of law made or

information not previously considered.

(b) A request for reconsideration of a

bid protest decision shall be filed, with

copies to the parties who participated in

the protest, not later than 10 days after

the basis for reconsideration is known

or should have been known, whichever

is earlier.

(c) GAO will summarily dismiss any

request for reconsideration that fails to

state a valid basis for reconsideration or

is untimely. The filing of a request for

reconsideration does not require the

withholding of award and the

suspension of contract performance

under 31 U.S.C. 3553 (c) and (d).

Robert P. Murphy,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 96–10831 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Parts 161, 250 and 284

[Docket No. RM96–1–000]

Standards For Business Practices Of

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines

April 24, 1996.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

and Request for Office of Management

and Budget Emergency Processing of

Submission of Collection of

Information.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission is issuing a

notice of proposed rulemaking to revise

the Commission’s regulations to require

interstate natural gas pipelines to follow

standardized procedures for critical

business practices—nominations;

allocations, balancing, and

measurement; invoicing; and capacity

release—and standardized mechanisms

for electronic communication between

the pipelines and those with whom they

do business. The proposed regulations

incorporate by reference the proposed

standards submitted by the Gas Industry

Standards Board (GISB) in response to

the Commission’s October 25, 1995

Advanced Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANOPR). 60 FR 55504

(Nov. 1, 1995).

GISB and others in the natural gas

industry have requested expedited

processing of this proposed rule.

Accordingly, pursuant to 5 CFR

1320.13, the Commission is providing

notice of its request to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

emergency processing of this proposed

collection of information by May 24,

1996.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

are due May 24, 1996. Comments

should be filed with the Office of the

Secretary and should refer to Docket No.

RM96–1–000.

Because the Commission has

requested OMB to process the proposed

collection of information on an

emergency basis, comments on the

proposed collection of information

should be filed with OMB, attention

Desk Officer FERC, as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington DC,

20426

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 3019 NEOB, Washington, D.C.

20503, or via the Internet at

hillierlt@a1.eop.gov.

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, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426. (202) 208–

1283

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

D.C. 20426.

The Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin
19212 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines, 60 FR 55504 (Nov. 1, 1995),

73 FERC ¶ 61,104 (Oct. 25, 1995). Public Reporting

Burden

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 or 1–

800–856–3920. To access CIPS, set your

communications software to use 19200,

14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400,

1200, or 300 bps, full duplex, no parity,

8 data bits, and 1 stop bit. The full text

of this document will be available on

CIPS in ASCII and WordPerfect 5.1

format. The complete text on diskette in

WordPerfect format may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, La Dorn Systems

Corporation, also located in Room 2A,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington D.C.

20426.

The Commission’s bulletin board

system also can be accessed through the

FedWorld system directly by modem or

through the Internet. To access the

FedWorld system by modem:

• Dial (703) 321–3339 and logon to

the FedWorld system.

• After logging on, type: /go FERC

To access the FedWorld system,

through the Internet:

• Telnet to: fedworld.gov

• Select the option: [1] FedWorld

• Logon to the FedWorld system

• Type: /go FERC

Or:

• Point your Web Browser to: http://

www.fedworld.gov

• Scroll down the page to select

FedWorld Telnet Site

• Select the option: [1] FedWorld

• Logon to the FedWorld system

• Type: /go FERC

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

April 24, 1996.

I. Introduction

The Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (Commission) is proposing

to amend its open access regulations to

standardize business practices and

procedures governing transactions

between interstate natural gas pipelines,

their customers, and others doing

business on the pipelines. The proposed

standards govern four important

business practices—nominations;

allocations, balancing, and

measurement; invoicing; and capacity

release—as well as the mechanisms for

electronic communication between the

pipelines and those doing business on

the pipelines. The proposed regulations

incorporate by reference the standards

submitted by the Gas Industry

Standards Board (GISB) in response to

the Commission’s October 25, 1995

Advanced Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANOPR).1 The

Commission proposes to require

pipelines to comply with the regulations

by January 1, 1997.

II. Public Reporting Burden

The proposed rule would require

natural gas pipelines to adopt both

standards for business practices and

procedures as well as mechanisms for

electronic communication between

pipelines and those doing business with

the pipelines. The standards would

regularize the means by which the gas

industry conducts business across the

interstate pipeline grid. The standards

were developed by GISB, an industry

consensus standards organization, to

improve the efficiency of the gas market.

The Commission is proposing to adopt

these standards by reference.

The proposed rule would affect one

existing Commission data collection,

FERC–545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate

Change (Non-formal), (OMB Control No.

1902–0154) (FERC–545), and establish a

new data collection/requirement, FERC–

549C, Standards for Business Practices

of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines,

(OMB Control No. to be assigned)

(FERC–549C).

Under the existing data collection/

requirements of FERC–545, there would

be a one-time estimated annual

reporting burden of 6,400 hours (80

hours per company) with the adoption

of the standards/business practices as

proposed herein. The initial

implementation of the proposed

standards/business practices would

require approximately 80 interstate

natural gas pipelines to make tariff

filings to conform their tariffs with the

standards/business practices. (See

FERC–545 burden detail in estimated

burden table below.)

Under the new data collection/

requirements of FERC–549C there

would be a one-time start-up annual

burden/cost of 1,227,840 hours (15,348

per company). It is expected that any

recurring annual burden/cost would not

be substantial given the operating

efficiencies which would result from the

proposed standards/business practices,

particularly the improved methods of

electronic communication.

The proposed standards/data

requirements contained in this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking have been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for review under section

3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). For copies of

the OMB submission, contact Michael

Miller at 202–208–1415. Comments are

solicited on the Commission’s need to

require the industry to adopt the

standards/business practices on an

industry-wide basis; whether the

proposed requirements will have

practical utility; the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates; ways to

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity

of the proposed data requirements; and

any suggested methods for minimizing

respondents’ burden including the use

of automated techniques. Persons

wishing to comment on the proposed

information requirements should direct

their comments to the Desk Officer

FERC, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 3019 NEOB, Washington,

D.C. 20503, phone 202–395–3087 or via

the Internet at hillierlt@a1.eop.gov.

GISB and others in the natural gas

industry have requested expedited

processing of this proposed rule, and

the Commission has requested the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) to provide for emergency

processing of this proposed collection of

information by May 24, 1996.

Comments on the collection of

information, therefore, should be filed

with the Office of Management and

Budget as soon as possible to provide

OMB sufficient time for its review. A

copy of any comments filed with the

Office of Management and Budget also

should be sent to the following address

at the Commission: Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Information

Services Division, Room 41–17,

Washington, DC 20426, Attention:

Michael Miller.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN

Affected data collection/requirement Number of

respondents

Total number of responses

Hours per

response

Total annual

hours

FERC–549C (New Data Requirement):

Reporting/Data Requirement Burden ........................................................................ 80 80 15,348 1,227,840
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19213

2Standards For Electronic Bulletin Boards

Required Under Part 284 of the Commission’s

Regulations, Order No. 563, 59 FR 516 (Jan. 5,

1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles ¶ 30,988

(Dec. 23, 1993), order on reh’g, Order No. 563–A,

59 FR 23624 (May 6, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs.

Preambles ¶ 30,994 (May 2, 1994), reh’g denied,

Order No. 563–B, 68 FERC ¶ 61,002 (1994).

3Order No. 563–A, III FERC Stats. & Regs.

Preambles, at 31,050.

4According to a March 27, 1996 letter from

counsel for GISB, to the Secretary of the

Commission (filed in this docket), GISB has not yet

received approval by the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) as an accredited

standards organization due to a misunderstanding

between GISB and ANSI. GISB is now pursuing

ANSI accreditation, and, according to GISB, ANSI

has agreed to expedite its review of GISB’s

application. Accreditation involves, among other

items, ANSI’s review of the process and procedures

of the standards-developers to ensure that the

standards-development process is open to all

materially affected parties and that standards are

developed by a balanced consensus of the industry,

without domination by any single interest or

interest category.

5To pass the Executive Committee, a standard

must be approved by 17 out of the 25 members,

with at least two affirmative votes from each

segment. These standards must then be approved by

a vote of 67% of GISB’s general membership to

become approved standards.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN—Continued

Affected data collection/requirement Number of

respondents

Total number of responses

Hours per

response

Total annual

hours

FERC–545 (1902–0154):

Reporting/Data Requirement Burden ........................................................................ 80 80 80 6,400

Total Annual Hours (All Data Collections/Requirements) .................................. 80 80 15,428 1,234,240

Data Collection/Requirement Costs:

The Commission seeks comments on the

costs to comply with these proposed

standards/business practices. It has

projected that the average annualized

cost per respondent for the first year

would be as follows:

Annualized Capital/Start-up

Costs

FERC–549C ............................... $750,118

FERC–545 ................................. 3,910

Total ...................................... 754,028

Internal Review: The Commission has

reviewed, in general, the proposed

standards/business practices and

determined that they are necessary to

establish a more efficient and integrated

pipeline grid. Requiring such standards

on an industry-wide basis would reduce

the variations in pipeline business

practices and, thus, enable buyers to

more easily and efficiently buy and

transport gas from all potential sources

of supply. The proposed standards/

business practices conform to the

Commission’s plan for efficient

information collection, communication,

and management within the natural gas

industry. The Commission has assured

itself, by means of its internal review,

that there is specific, objective support

for the burden estimates associated with

the information requirements proposed

in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NOPR).

III. Background

The process of standardizing business

practices in the natural gas industry

began with a Commission initiative to

convene a technical conference to

standardize electronic communication

of capacity release transactions.2 To

develop the required standards, the

participants at the conference agreed to

form working groups composed of

representatives from all segments of the

industry. In addition to the capacity

release standards, the conference

participants decided that

standardization of other business

transactions, such as nominations and

flowing gas, was important and formed

an additional Working Group to begin to

develop standards for these

transactions. A consensus of the

Working Group recommended that the

industry be permitted to develop and

implement such standards voluntarily.

Thus, while the Commission recognized

the importance of this effort in helping

to facilitate gas movement across the

pipeline grid, the Commission was not

actively involved in the process.3 The

Commission pledged to reevaluate its

role in the development and

implementation of such standards based

on the progress made by the industry.

During this same time frame, the

industry sought to formalize the

Working Group process by forming a

private standards organization to

continue and expand the Working

Groups’ efforts to develop electronic

standards. In 1995, the industry formed

GISB as a consensus standards

organization open to all members of the

gas industry.4 GISB’s procedures require

balanced voting representation from all

five segments of the industry—

pipelines, local distribution companies

(LDCs), producers, end-users, and

services (including marketers and thirdparty computer service providers). At

the Executive Committee level, a

consensus of the five segments must

approve each standard.5

In addition, the industry, under the

auspices of the Interstate Natural Gas

Association of America (INGAA) and

the Associated Gas Distributors (AGD),

began a Grid Integration Project to

consider standards for coordinating

pipeline business practices to simplify

the process of shipping gas across

multiple pipelines. After GISB

expanded its scope from electronic

standards to encompass business

practice standards, the Grid Integration

Project was folded into GISB.

On September 21, 1995, the

Commission held a public conference in

Docket No. RM93–4–000 to evaluate the

progress being made towards

standardization. Almost all the

commenters at the conference

acknowledged that the industry had not

achieved the anticipated progress. Many

participants maintained that merely

standardizing electronic communication

did not go far enough to provide for

efficient integration of the pipeline grid.

Even though GISB had promulgated

standards for electronic communication

of nomination and confirmation

information, the participants contended

these standards were not being widely

used because they failed to standardize

the pipelines’ disparate underlying

business practices. For example,

pipelines often require vastly different

information to submit a valid

nomination, so that, even if nominations

are submitted electronically, efficiency

would be impaired because the

shippers’ schedulers would have to

know the idiosyncratic nomination and

confirmation information for each

pipeline.

On October 25, 1995, the Commission

issued an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking requesting the submission of

detailed proposals from the industry, by

March 15, 1996, that would enable the

Commission to adopt regulations for

business practices and procedures

involving transactions between

pipelines and their customers. In the

ANOPR, the Commission concluded

that without common business practices
19214 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules

6The Commission also invited the submission of

alternatives to the current requirement that

pipelines provide information through an

Electronic Bulletin Board (EBB). See 18 CFR

284.8(b)(4).

7The PI–GRIDTM number is maintained by the

Petroleum Information Corporation pursuant to a

contract with major gas industry trade associations

to provide and maintain a common code database.

The DUNS number refers to the company codes

published by Dun & Bradstreet Corporation. See

Order No. 563–A, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles,

at 31,043.

8ASC X12 is a standardized format for electronic

transmission of documents. Standards for the use of

such documents are promulgated by the ANSI

Accredited Standards Committee (ASC).

9The appendix lists those filing comments.

10The Commission is not proposing to adopt the

principles articulated by GISB, because these do not

purport to impose obligations on pipelines. The

principles, however, will be used as guidance as to

the intent of the standards.

and a common language for

communication, the speed and

efficiency with which shippers can

transact business across multiple

pipelines is now, and will continue to

be, severely compromised.

The Commission sought detailed

proposals in four areas: (1) The standard

set of information (data elements) that

pipelines must use in conducting ten

high priority business transactions

identified by the industry—

nominations, confirmations, allocated

gas flows, customer and contract

imbalances, gas flow at metered points,

transportation invoices, pre-determined

allocation methodologies, gas payment

remittance statements, gas sales

invoices, and uploads of capacity

release prearranged deals; (2) standards

covering nomenclature and any

business practices associated with the

ten elements; (3) standard methods of

communicating the information,

including communication protocols for

each business practice that address

issues such as scheduling and response

times of information exchanges and

performance standards for assessing

whether the system is substantially

meeting those goals; 6 and (4) standards

needed to facilitate gas flow across

interconnecting pipelines, such as those

considered by the Grid Integration

Project.

The Commission established January

1, 1997 as the target deadline for

compliance with the standards, and

urged the segments of the industry to

work together, as they had during the

Working Group process, to achieve

consensus on the standards. The

Commission anticipated that GISB

would become the forum for

coordinating these industry efforts, and

stated it would give great weight to

consensus proposals emanating from the

GISB process.

On March 15, 1996, GISB filed 140

standards covering five major business

areas—nominations and confirmations,

flowing gas, invoicing, capacity release,

and the electronic mechanism for

communication between industry

participants (the electronic delivery

mechanism (EDM)). Over 500

individuals participated in the effort to

develop these standards, with 45 days of

meetings conducted over a period of 53

business days. The GISB Executive

Committee, through its consensus

voting procedures, approved these

standards. According to GISB, these

standards are intended to be minimum

standards that parties are encouraged to

exceed by providing enhanced services

or faster response times. On March 15,

GISB also filed a draft set of data

elements describing the specific

information that would be used by

industry participants to conduct the 10

high priority business transactions.

Subsequently, on April 9, 1996,

GISB’s Executive Committee approved

the final version of the data sets. GISB

filed the data sets with the Commission

on April 12, 1996, along with a revision

to business practice standard 1.2.2 to

clarify the usage codes employed in the

data sets. GISB explains that the data

sets are to be implemented using the

current PI–GRIDTM and DUNS

numbers.7 GISB reports that, as part of

its process of trying to improve the

standards, the Executive Committee

unanimously has adopted the

recommendation of its Common Codes

Subcommittee to revise and enhance the

common code structures to produce

greater efficiency.

GISB also states that it has begun the

process of mapping the data sets into

ASC X12 language and preparing an

implementation guide.8 GISB states that

its task forces have committed to

completing this effort by May 31, 1996.

GISB notes that if this effort reveals the

need for changes to the data sets, it will

so inform the Commission.

GISB says it mailed out ballots to its

membership on April 12, 1996, for

ratification of the business practice

standards and data sets. An affirmative

vote by 67% of those returning ballots

is needed for ratification, and members

have 30 days to respond.

On March 15, 1996 (or shortly

thereafter), 40 parties filed comments on

the GISB standards.9 On the whole, the

commenters found that GISB’s

standards would significantly improve

the efficiency of the gas market, but they

raised questions with respect to specific

standards.

IV. Discussion

A. Proposed Incorporation of the GISB

Standards by Reference

The Commission commends the

industry and GISB for the work they

have put into this process and the

significant progress they have made

towards standardization. GISB’s

standards go beyond merely

standardizing the data sets for electronic

communication of the ten high priority

data elements; the standards regularize

the means by which the entire industry

will conduct business across the

interstate pipeline grid.

The following is just a small sample

of what would be accomplished by the

adoption of these standards. All

pipelines would permit pooling on their

systems, which will simplify

nominations by permitting producers

and shippers to aggregate gas packages.

All pipelines would permit at least one

intra-day nomination, which will allow

shippers to change the amount of gas

they receive during a day to better fit

changing needs. All pipelines would

adopt a standard set of information

covering the ten high priority data

elements, so that shippers will be able

to communicate using the same

information for the same transactions no

matter the pipelines with which they

deal. And all pipelines would support a

standard Internet connection for

communications with their customers,

eliminating the disparity in log-in

procedures and user interfaces faced by

customers using the individual pipeline

electronic bulletin boards.

The GISB standards represent a

formidable step towards improved

efficiency and competitiveness in the

gas industry. Accordingly, the

Commission is proposing to require

interstate pipelines to comply with the

GISB definitions, standards, and data

sets by January 1, 1997.10 Pipelines also

may need to make tariff filings to amend

current tariffs in sufficient time to

comply with the new standards.

To adopt the GISB standards, the

Commission proposes to add section

284.10 to its regulations. Section

284.10(b) would incorporate the GISB

definitions, standards, and data sets by

reference. GISB’s previously approved

standards for capacity release

transactions also would replace the

current requirement, in section

284.8(b)(5), that pipelines comply with

standardized data sets and

communication protocols. In addition,

the EBB requirements of sections

284.8(b)(4) and 284.9(b)(4) would be

moved to section 284.10(a).

Incorporation of the GISB standards

by reference is consistent with the

public policy of having federal agencies

rely upon voluntary private standards
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19215

11See National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995, Pub L. 104–113, § 12(d),

110 Stat. 775 (1996), and OMB Circular A–119,

‘‘Federal Participation in the Development and Use

of Voluntary Standards’’ (Oct. 20, 1993) (an earlier

version is available at 47 FR 49496 (Nov. 1, 1992)).

12Although GISB fully expects membership

approval of the standards, the Commission’s 30 day

comment period in this proceeding affords an

opportunity for comment in the event that the

membership vote results in any changes or

revisions to the standards.

13 18 CFR 161.3(h), 250.16(c)(2)284.8(b)(4),

284.106(c)(4), 284.223(b) (requiring pipelines to

post capacity information, affiliate discount reports,

the affiliate capacity allocation log, and an index of

customers on EBBs).

14The GISB standards do not appear to preclude

the Midwest LDCs from reaching agreements with

their pipelines to provide greater nomination

flexibility if that is required in their region.

whenever feasible.11 Even though the

Commission is proposing to incorporate

the standards by reference, the

Commission retains the ability, if it

deems necessary, to modify pipelines’

obligations by specifying in the

regulations any deletions of, or revisions

or additions to the GISB standards.

In its March 15, 1996 filing, GISB

asserts that major efforts are required by

all segments of the industry to meet the

Commission’s proposed January 1, 1997

compliance date. GISB, therefore,

requested the Commission to issue its

NOPR and final rule as quickly as

procedural rules permit, with a target

date of May 31, 1996, for issuance of the

final rule.

Since GISB did not submit the data

sets until April 12, 1996, and final

approval of the business practice

standards and the data sets by the GISB

members will not take place until midMay 1996, the Commission cannot meet

the suggested May 31, 1996 date and

still afford a meaningful opportunity for

comment.12 The Commission, however,

recognizes the importance of this

undertaking and is committed to

moving this proceeding as quickly as

possible. The Commission, for example,

is issuing this NOPR at the earliest

opportunity after having received

GISB’s final data sets.

GISB states that the standards were

based on the Commission’s January 1,

1997 target compliance date, with the

exception of the Internet protocols, for

which GISB proposes a compliance date

of April 1, 1997. Other commenters,

however, expressed concern about the

effect on shippers and consumers if

pipeline compliance is set for January 1,

1997, and failures occur during the

midst of the winter heating season.

The Commission considers prompt

implementation of these standards to be

a high priority for the industry and does

not want to unduly delay the beneficial

effects of implementing these standards.

Affected parties are fully aware of the

standards and can begin to plan for

implementation now. The Commission,

therefore, proposes to adhere to the

January 1, 1997 compliance date. The

Commission recognizes, however, the

concerns expressed by some parties

regarding mid-winter implementation.

Parties objecting to this proposed date

for compliance should provide a fully

developed staggered implementation

plan or other approach that will ensure

rapid implementation of the most

important standards. INGAA, for

instance, submitted a proposed phased

implementation plan that puts off

implementation of some of the

important nomination and other

standards until June of 1997. The

Commission believes this is too long.

Adoption of the GISB standards does

not mean that the work of

standardization is done. As GISB and

the industry recognize, standardization

is an ongoing, continuous process and

not all the needed standards could be

developed within the timeframe

established by the Commission in the

ANOPR. The Commission, therefore, is

also setting September 30, 1996 as a

date for GISB and the industry to submit

detailed proposals for standards in the

additional areas identified by GISB and

the commenters, such as expansion of

Internet protocols to include all

electronic information provided by the

pipelines (perhaps to replace pipeline

cost-of-service EBBs13), title transfer

tracking, allocations and rankings of gas

packages, treatment of compressor fuel,

operational balancing agreements,

routing models, imbalance resolution,

operational flow orders, multi-tiered

allocations and confirmations, and

additional pooling standards.

B. Electronic Delivery Mechanism

GISB has not yet completed the

technical process of mapping the data

sets to the ASC X12 formats and

preparing the associated

implementation guide, but has

committed to do so by May 31, 1996.

The Commission expects that these

documents will go through the GISB

consensus process for obtaining

industry input and approval. Once

completed, the Commission proposes to

incorporate these documents in its

regulations.

In addition, GISB’s standard for

providing for Internet communication is

tentative and depends on the outcome

of further examination of security and

other issues. The Commission requests

comment from GISB and others

specifying the delivery mechanism and

related standards and protocols that

would be used on January 1, 1997, if the

Internet approach is not adopted.

Comments also should address whether

additional standards are needed for

Internet communication, such as the use

of file transfer protocol (FTP), and the

timetable for developing those

standards.

C. Comments

The comments on the GISB standards

that were received contemporaneously

with GISB’s filing fall into essentially

four categories: Suggestions to delete or

revise standards; requests for

clarification as to the scope of

standards; requests for waivers; and

requests for additional standards that

GISB either did not adopt or did not

consider. Given the information the

Commission has at this point in the

process, the objections raised do not

appear to justify any change or revision

to the industry’s consensus proposals in

this NOPR. A benefit of having these

comments is that they may help focus

the industry’s comments on this

proposed rule.

1. Requests for Revisions

Since a consensus of all segments of

the natural gas industry has found that

the standards are necessary and achieve

a reasonable balance between the needs

of all segments and areas of the country,

the Commission is hesitant to revise

them. The industry, not the

Commission, is in the best position to

evaluate and balance the industry’s

concerns, and the Commission sees no

evidence that an appropriate balance

has not been struck. For example, some

LDCs and shippers on the West Coast

contend their efficiency would be

improved by moving the start of the

nomination process from 11:30 a.m. to

12:30 p.m. Iroquois, on the other hand,

contends that 10:30 a.m. would be

preferable for East Coast shippers.

Similarly, several Midwest LDCs

contend their pipelines’ previous 12:00

noon gas day makes their nomination

and scheduling process easier than

GISB’s 9:00 a.m. gas day, but apparently

the rest of the industry prefers the 9:00

a.m. gas day. The GISB standards,

therefore, appear to effect a reasonable

compromise between the positions of

the various industry segments. 14

Some commenters are concerned that

GISB’s deadlines do not provide

sufficient flexibility. NGC/Conoco/

Vastar/Coastal contend uniform

nomination deadlines should not be

adopted; they prefer varied nomination

schedules, because, they argue, varied

schedules would permit parties bumped

on one pipeline to renominate on other

pipelines.
19216 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules

15See text accompanying note 13, supra.

16Release of Firm Capacity on Interstate Natural

Gas Pipelines, Order No. 577, 60 FR 16979 (Apr. 4,

1995), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles ¶ 31,017

(Mar. 29, 1995). See also Petition Of United

The GISB standards, however, do not

appear to unduly restrict flexibility. The

standards would require each pipeline

to permit one intra-day nomination four

hours prior to gas flow. The standards

also establish a seven-day-a-week, 24-

hour-a-day nomination process and

specify that nominations submitted after

the nomination deadline should still be

processed by the pipeline. Thus, as long

as pipelines have available capacity,

shippers should be permitted to

nominate gas on those pipelines even if

the nomination deadline has passed or

they have not previously submitted a

nomination for that day. The

Commission solicits comments as to

whether this interpretation is correct or

whether an additional standard may be

needed requiring pipelines to permit

nominations any time they have

unscheduled capacity.

Of course, during the comment

period, GISB and the industry have an

additional opportunity to review the

standards that have been challenged and

submit revisions. The Commission also

will be able to review these matters

again in light of comments on both sides

of the issues.

In addition, the Commission requests

clarification of GISB’s statement that all

of its standards should be considered

minimums and that parties are

encouraged to exceed these standards.

The Commission is not sure whether

GISB intends that pipelines and their

customers can mutually agree to change

all of the GISB standards or whether

some standards should be considered

inviolate, because any change would

have adverse repercussions for noncontracting parties.

2. Requests for Clarification

The requests for clarification

generally involve questions about how

the standards are to be implemented.

For instance, some shippers contend

that GISB’s standard for one intra-day

nomination should apply to all receipt

and delivery points and all services,

while others contend that pipelines

should be permitted to offer services

without this flexibility for a lower price.

CNG Transmission similarly contends

that the requirement for pipelines to

provide pooling should apply only to

direct feed deliveries, not to supplies

received from upstream pipelines.

The Commission expects pipelines to

make a good faith effort to implement

these standards as broadly as possible to

provide their customers with the

services they need to operate in an

integrated gas market. Providing more

specific answers to implementation

questions may not be possible on a

generic basis, since operational

conditions and customers’ requirements

may differ depending on the pipelines.

The Commission expects pipelines to

consult, and reach agreement, with their

shippers on the mechanics of

implementation. This process should

resolve most of these disputes. But, if

problems still exist, the Commission can

address them when pipelines file

revised tariffs to incorporate the

standards or through the complaint

process.

3. Requests for Waivers

Several pipelines have requested

waivers of certain standards that they

find impractical on their systems. In

particular, they argue that they may not

be able to provide, with their current

equipment, certain measurement data as

quickly as the standards specify. They

maintain that installing updated

equipment would be unnecessarily

expensive.

As a general matter, the Commission

is hesitant to grant exceptions to

industry-wide standards, because such

exceptions run counter to the reason for

establishing standards in the first place:

that the industry requires uniform

procedures to achieve the greatest

efficiency in transporting gas across an

integrated pipeline grid. The

Commission, however, will consider

requests for waivers based on the facts

of the individual situation. Agreement

to a waiver by a pipeline’s customers

would be an important factor in

considering any waiver request.

4. Requests for Additional Standards

GISB recognizes that additional work

is needed to consider standards in the

additional areas listed earlier, 15 but has

not yet established deadlines for

consideration of such standards. A

number of the commenters argue that

standards in these areas are extremely

important, but they do not suggest that

development of standards in these areas

is a prerequisite to implementation of

the current GISB standards.

The Commission recognizes that, in

the time provided, the industry could

not reach agreement on all the issues

necessary to enhance the efficiency of

the gas marketplace. Although adoption

of standards in these additional areas

need not take place coincident with the

standards GISB has filed, prompt

attention to these issues appears

important to the continued development

of an efficient gas marketplace. For a

fully competitive gas market to exist,

participants need to be able to buy and

sell gas freely. The ability do so,

however, can be restricted if these

transactions are not accurately reflected

in the scheduling, confirmation, and

accounting procedures used by the

industry. Similarly, shippers should be

able to contract for gas at a lower price

if they are willing to assume a greater

risk of curtailment. Thus, shippers and

producers must be able to assign

different priorities to gas packages to

reflect those choices.

The industry is better able than the

Commission to craft solutions that will

most effectively resolve the issues at the

lowest overall cost. Now that the press

of developing the bulk of the standards

has receded, the Commission expects

the industry to focus its attention on

these additional areas. The Commission

recognizes that some of these issues are

complex and have vexed the industry

for some time. But that is all the more

reason for all segments of the industry

and GISB to continue to work

cooperatively and creatively to develop

solutions that fairly balance the

concerns of all the participants. For

example, when faced with the task of

creating a database for common

transaction points, the industry decided

upon a nationwide solution by using the

Petroleum Information Corporation to

create and administer the common code

data base. Similar creativity should be

employed here.

Because of the importance shippers

place on resolving these issues, the

Commission is soliciting detailed

proposals for standards in these areas

from GISB and the industry, by

September 30, 1996. The Commission

would prefer that the industry reach

consensus agreement through GISB on

proposed standards (or a consensus that

a standard is not needed). However, if

with this additional time, the industry

is unable to reach consensus, the

Commission is willing to resolve these

issues. In the event consensus is not

reached, the Commission will expect

the September 30, 1996 reports to be

sufficiently comprehensive that they

fully describe the problems faced by the

industry and explain whether a uniform

response is needed or not, discuss the

potential solutions to the problems that

have been considered, and provide

analysis of the benefits and

disadvantages of the proposed solutions.

D. Capacity Release

The Commission has been examining

the operation of its capacity release

mechanism in a number of

proceedings.16 As part of this process,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19217

Distribution Companies and Associated Gas

Distributors For A Rulemaking To Promote Growth

And Development Of The Secondary Market,

Docket No. RM94–10–000, filed December 9, 1993.

17See Order No. 577, III FERC Stats. & Regs.

Preambles at 31,313.

18 18 CFR 284.243.

19Specifically, pipelines would need to be

notified by 1 p.m. for shippers to nominate the next

day.

20Capacity release deals are exempt from bidding

if they are for a period of 31 days or less or are at

the maximum rate. 18 CFR 284.243(h).

21Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897

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

1986–1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).

22 18 CFR 380.4.

23See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5),

380.4(a)(27).

24 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

Commission staff, in the fall of 1994,

conducted informal discussions with all

segments of the gas industry about the

way in which the system operates,

discussions which helped form the basis

for changes in the program.17

Although GISB did not propose

changes to the major policy aspects of

the Commission regulations (such as the

cap on the price for released capacity

and the requirement for bidding on

pipeline EBBs18), GISB did address

important issues regarding the operation

of the capacity release program. Of

particular interest, GISB proposes a

standard timeframe within which

pipelines would process capacity

release transactions and has created

standardized data sets permitting

uploads of capacity release transactions.

Under GISB’s timeline, replacement

shippers would be able to nominate

under a short-term release (less than five

months) within one day of notifying the

pipeline of the release.19 This same

schedule applies whether the release is

subject to bidding or is exempt from the

bidding process.20

To assist in the Commission’s

consideration of the capacity release

mechanism, the Commission is

requesting comment on how adoption of

GISB’s proposals would affect concerns

previously expressed about the capacity

release program. Comments should not

focus on whether the Commission

should revise its basic capacity release

policies, such as the price cap or

bidding, but should center on the effect

of adopting the GISB standards on

previously identified problems with the

capacity release system. Comments

should address how effectively GISB’s

proposals deal with concerns about the

speed and other mechanics of the

pipeline bidding process, the difficulty

in coordinating releases across multiple

pipelines, and the lack of comparability

between the capacity release procedures

and the process of obtaining pipeline

interruptible or short-term firm

capacity.

Few comments address GISB’s

capacity release provisions.

TransCapacity requests clarification of

standard 5.3.11 which states that

‘‘replacement shipper initiates

confirmation of prearranged deals

electronically.’’ TransCapacity contends

that the standard, as worded, does not

require pipelines to accept replacement

shipper confirmations through file

uploads; it would permit pipelines to

specify EBB confirmations or some

other electronic means.

TransCapacity appears to raise a valid

concern. The reason for developing

standardized data sets for uploads of

pre-arranged deals was to increase the

efficiency of the capacity release

mechanism by permitting parties to

avoid the use of pipeline EBBs to

transmit release transactions to the

pipelines. On some pipelines,

apparently, submission of the prearranged deal is not sufficient to

conclude the transaction; the pipeline

requires the replacement shipper to

confirm that transaction. Comments

should consider whether the efficiency

sought to be achieved through uploads

of pre-arranged deals would be

compromised if pipelines are not

required to permit uploads of

confirmations by the replacement

shipper or its agent.

INGAA suggests that the Commission

consider removing the requirement that

bidding take place through the pipeline

and, instead, establish a mechanism

under which bidding could take place

through third-party computer service

providers. Comments should address

whether this proposal would introduce

greater efficiency in the capacity release

system. One of the principal arguments

for permitting bidding on third-party

boards was that third-parties have an

incentive to process transactions much

faster than the pipelines, which

sometimes had bidding and posting

periods lasting several days. GISB’s

standards would require pipelines to

process bids in one day, and comments

should address whether this change

reduces the need for third-party

bidding. In addition, comments should

consider the possible effect on releasers

and replacement shippers if, instead of

having the assurance that all biddable

deals for a pipeline are posted on that

pipeline’s system, they also have to

monitor postings on third-party boards.

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.21 The Commission has

categorically excluded certain actions

from these requirements as not having a

significant effect on the human

environment.22 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.23

Therefore, an environmental assessment

is unnecessary and has not been

prepared in this rulemaking.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Certification

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) 24 generally requires a description

and analysis of final rules that will have

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The proposed regulations would 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 proposed

herein will not have a significant

adverse impact on a substantial number

of small entities.

VII. Information Collection

Requirement

The Commission considers the

prompt implementation of these

standards to be a high priority for the

industry, and GISB and others in the

natural gas industry have requested that

the Commission process this proposed

rule as quickly as possible. The

Commission believes that the normal

clearance procedures for review and

approval by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) could delay the

proposed date for pipelines to comply

with the rule. Therefore, the

Commission is submitting this proposed

information collection/requirement for

emergency processing under Section 5

CFR 1320.13 of OMB’s regulations. The

Commission requests OMB to approve

the proposed data collection

requirements no later than 5 p.m., May

24, 1996. Comments to OMB regarding

the subject NOPR should be sent as soon

as possible in order that OMB have

sufficient time for its review.

Title: FERC–545, Gas Pipeline Rates:

Rate Change (Non-formal).
19218 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules

25 5 CFR 1320.11.

Action: Proposed Data Collection/

Requirements.

OMB Control No.: 1902–0154.

Docket No.: RM96–1–000.

Respondents: Interstate Natural Gas

Pipelines (Not applicable to small

businesses).

Frequency of Responses: One-time

tariff filings (First year).

Title: FERC–549C, Standards for

Business Practices of Interstate Natural

Gas Pipelines.

Action: Proposed Data Collection/

Requirements.

OMB Control No.: To be assigned by

OMB.

Respondents: Interstate Natural Gas

Pipelines (Not applicable to small

businesses).

Frequency of Responses: One-time

capital/start-up new business

procedures (First year).

Necessity of Information: The Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking solicits public

comments to respond to the standards

proposed to be established to govern

four major business practices—

nominations; allocations, balancing, and

measurement; invoicing; and capacity

release—as well as the mechanism for

electronic communication between the

pipelines and those doing business with

the pipelines. The proposed data

requirements incorporate by reference

the standards submitted by GISB.

Without the Commission’s adoption of

these standards to establish common

business practices and a common

language for communication across the

pipeline grid, the speed and efficiency

with which shippers can transact

business across multiple pipelines

would be severely compromised. Under

the proposed rule, all pipelines would

adopt a standard set of information

covering the ten high priority data

elements, so that shippers would be able

to communicate using the same

information for the same transactions

regardless of the pipelines with which

they are dealing. In addition, all

pipelines would support a standard

Internet connection for communications

with their customers, eliminating the

disparity in log-on procedures and user

interfaces faced by customers using the

individual pipeline electronic bulletin

boards.

The Office of Management and

Budget’s (OMB) regulations require

OMB to approve certain information

collection requirements imposed by

agency rule.25 The information

collection requirements in the proposed

rule would be reported directly to the

industry users. The implementation of

these proposed 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 with Order No.

636 and the restructuring of the natural

gas industry. The Commission’s Office

of Pipeline Regulation uses the data in

rate proceedings to review rate and tariff

changes by natural gas companies for

the transportation of gas and for general

industry oversight.

The Commission is submitting

notification of this proposed rule to

OMB for emergency processing.

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].

VIII. Comment Procedures

The Commission invites interested

persons to submit written comments on

the matters proposed in this notice,

including any related matters or

alternative proposals that commenters

may wish to discuss. The Commission

also invites commenters to address the

comments already filed in this

proceeding and discuss why they may

support the standards filed by GISB. An

original and 14 copies of comments to

this notice must be filed with the

Commission no later than May 24, 1996.

Comments should be submitted to the

Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, and

should refer to Docket No. RM96–1–000.

Additionally, comments should be

submitted on computer diskette in

WordPerfect 5.1 format or in ASCII

format, with the name of the filer and

Docket No. RM96–1–000 on the outside

of the diskette.

All written comments will be placed

in the Commission’s public files and

will be available for inspection in the

Commission’s Public Reference Room at

888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC

20426, during regular business hours.

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 161

Natural gas, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 250

Natural gas, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 284

Continental shelf, Natural gas,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements; Incorporation by

reference.

By direction of the Commission.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Commission proposes to amend Parts

161, 250, and 284, Chapter I, Title 18,

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth

below.

PART 161—STANDARDS OF

CONDUCT FOR INTERSTATE

PIPELINES WITH MARKETING

AFFILIATES

1. The authority citation for Part 161

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w, 3301–

3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352.

§ 161.3 [Amended]

2. In § 161.3, paragraph (h)(2) is

amended by removing the phrase

‘‘§ 284.8(b)(4)’’ and adding, in its place,

the phrase ‘‘§ 284.10(a)’’.

PART 250—FORMS

1. The authority citation for Part 250

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717–717w, 3301–

3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352.

§ 250.16 [Amended]

2. In § 250.16, paragraph (c)(2) is

amended by removing the phrase

‘‘§ 284.8(b)(4)’’ and adding, in its place,

the phrase ‘‘§ 284.10(a)’’. ,

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 § 284.8, paragraphs (b)(4) and

(b)(5) are removed, paragraph (b)(6) is

redesignated (b)(4), and paragraph (b)(3)

is revised to read as follows:

§ 284.8 Firm transportation service.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) An interstate pipeline that offers

transportation service on a firm basis

under subpart B or G of this part must

provide all shippers with equal and

timely access to information relevant to

the availability of such service,

including, but not limited to, the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules 19219

availability of capacity at receipt points,

on the mainline, at delivery points, and

in storage fields, and whether the

capacity is available directly from the

pipeline or through capacity release.

The information must be provided on an

Electronic Bulletin Board with the

features prescribed in § 284.10(a) and as

required by § 284.10(b).

* * * * *

3. In § 284.9, paragraph (b)(4) is

removed, paragraph (b)(5) is

redesignated (b)(4), and paragraph (b)(3)

is revised to read as follows:

§ 284.9 Interruptible transportation service

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) An interstate pipeline that offers

transportation service on an

interruptible basis under subpart B or G

of this part must provide all shippers

with equal and timely access to

information relevant to the availability

of such service. The information must

be provided on an Electronic Bulletin

Board with the features prescribed in

§ 284.10(a) and as required by

§ 284.10(b).

* * * * *

4. Section 284.10 is added to read as

follows:

§ 284.10 Standards for Pipeline Business

Operations and Communications.

(a) Electronic Bulletin Boards. An

interstate pipeline that is required by

this chapter or by its tariff to display

information on an Electronic Bulletin

Board must provide for the following

features on its board:

(1) Downloading by users,

(2) Daily back-up of information

displayed on the board, which must be

available for user review for at least

three years,

(3) Purging of information on

completed transactions from current

files,

(4) Display of most recent entries

ahead of information posted earlier, and

(5) On-line help, a search function

that permits users to locate all

information concerning a specific

transaction, and a menu that permits

users to separately access the notices of

available capacity, the marketing

affiliate discount information, the

marketing affiliate capacity allocation

log, and the standards of conduct

information.

(b) Incorporation by Reference of

Business Practice and Electronic

Communication Standards. (1)(i) An

interstate pipeline that transports gas

under subpart B or G of this part must

comply with the following business

practice and electronic communication

standards promulgated by the Gas

Industry Standards Board, which are

incorporated herein by reference in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1

CFR Part 51:

(A) Nominations Definitions 1.2.1

through 1.2.4 (Version 1), Standards

1.3.1 through 1.3.23 (Version 1), and

Data Sets 1.4.1 through 1.4.5 (Version

1);

(B) Flowing Gas Standards 2.3.1

through 2.3.28 (Version 1) and Data Sets

2.4.1 through 2.4.4 (Version 1);

(C) Invoicing Definition 3.2.1 (Version

1), Standards 3.3.1 through 3.3.21

(Version 1), and Data Sets 3.4.1 through

3.4.3 (Version 1);

(D) Electronic Delivery Mechanisms

Standards 4.3.1 through 4.3.4 (Version

1), except that pipelines must comply

with Standards 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 by

January 1, 1997;

(E) Capacity Release Definition 5.2.1

(Version 1), Standards 5.3.1 through

5.3.29 (Version 1), and Data Sets 5.4.1

through 5.4.20 (Version 1);

(F) Electronic Data Interchange

Implementation Guide, Capacity Release

(Version 1.0).

(ii) Copies of these standards may be

obtained from the Gas Industry

Standards Board, 1100 Louisiana, Suite

4925, Houston, TX 77002. Copies may

be inspected and copied at the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, Public

Reference and Files Maintenance

Branch, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, DC 20426.

(2) Interstate pipelines must comply

with these standards and protocols by

January 1, 1997.

Note—The following appendix will not

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations

APPENDIX.—RM96–1–000—COMMENTS FILED

Commenters Abbreviations

American Forest & Paper Association ................................................................................................................... AF&PA.

Associated Gas Distributors .................................................................................................................................. AGD.

Brooklyn Union Gas Company .............................................................................................................................. Brooklyn Union.

Central Illinois Light Company ............................................................................................................................... CILCO.

CNG Transmission Corporation ............................................................................................................................. CNG Transmission.

CNG Energy Services Corporation ........................................................................................................................ CNG ESC.

Coastal Gas Marketing Company .......................................................................................................................... Coastal.

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

Consolidated Natural Gas System ........................................................................................................................ CNG.

East Ohio Gas Co., Hope Gas, Inc., The Peoples Natural Gas Co., Virginia Natural Gas, Inc., & West Ohio

Natural Gas Co..

CNG LDCs.

Energy Managers Association ............................................................................................................................... EMA.

EnerSoft Corp. and NYMEX Technology Corp. .................................................................................................... EnerSoft/NYMEX

Equitrans, L.P. ....................................................................................................................................................... Equitrans.

GasEDI ................................................................................................................................................................... GasEDI.

Gas Industry Standards Board .............................................................................................................................. GISB.

GISB Services Segment Executive Committee Members .................................................................................... GISB Services Segment.

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

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

Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. .............................................................................................................. Iroquois.

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

Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership .............................................................................................. MCV.

Minnegasco ............................................................................................................................................................ Minnegasco.

Natural Gas Clearinghouse, Conoco, Inc. and Vastar Gas Marketing, Inc. ......................................................... NGC/Conoco/Vastar.

Natural Gas Council ............................................................................................................................................... Natural Gas Council.

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America ........................................................................................................... Natural.

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

NorAm Energy Services, Inc. ................................................................................................................................ NES.

Northern Distributor Group .................................................................................................................................... NDG.
19220 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules

APPENDIX.—RM96–1–000—COMMENTS FILED—Continued

Commenters Abbreviations

Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Northern Indiana Fuel and Light Company, and Kokomo Gas and

Fuel Company.

Northern Indiana Distributors.

Northwest Industrial Gas Users ............................................................................................................................. NWIGU.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company ........................................................................................................................ PG&E.

Pacific Gas Transmission Company ...................................................................................................................... PGT.

PanEnergy Companies .......................................................................................................................................... PanEnergy.

SABRE Decision Technologies ............................................................................................................................. SDT.

Southern California Edison Company ................................................................................................................... Edison.

The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, North Shore Gas Company, and Northern Illinois Gas Company Peoples.

TransCapacity Limited Partnership ........................................................................................................................ TransCapacity.

United Distribution Companies .............................................................................................................................. UDC.

Williams Interstate Natural Gas System ................................................................................................................ WINGS.

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

[FR Doc. 96–10587 Filed 4–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 102, 130, 131, 133, 135,

136, 137, 139, 145, 146, 150, 152, 155,

156, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166,

168, and 169

[Docket No. 95N–0294]

Food Standards of Identity, Quality and

Fill of Container; Common or Usual

Name Regulations; Request for

Comments on Existing Regulations

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; extension of comment

period.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is announcing

that, while the comment period on the

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

that appeared in the Federal Register of

December 29, 1995 (60 FR 67492), will

end on April 29, 1996, the agency will

keep the record open to receive

comments on one aspect of this

rulemaking. The agency is taking this

action in response to several requests for

an extension to allow comments on the

issue of harmonization of the food

standards of FDA and those of the Food

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

DATES: Written comments by June 28,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to the Dockets Management Branch

(HFA–305), Food and Drug

Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,

rm. 1–23, Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Felicia Satchell, Center for Food Safety

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–158), Food

and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20204, 202–205–5099.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of December 29, 1995

(60 FR 67492), FDA issued an advance

notice of proposed rulemaking entitled

‘‘Food Standards of Identity, Quality

and Fill of Container; Common or Usual

Name Regulations; Request for

Comments on Existing Regulations.’’

Interested persons were given until

April 29, 1996, to comment on aspects

of the advance notice of proposed

rulemaking on food standards that the

agency published in December 1995.

FDA received several requests for an

extension of the comment period to

allow comments on the issue of

harmonization of food standards issued

by FDA and FSIS. After careful

consideration, FDA has decided to

extend the comment period to June 28,

1996, on this issue. The extension is

only for this aspect of the rulemaking.

The issue of harmonization was

discussed in section V.A.8. FDA–FSIS

Harmonization, found on page 67502 of

the advance notice.

Interested persons may, on or before

June 28, 1996, submit to the Dockets

Management Branch (address above)

written comments regarding this

proposal. Two copies of any comments

are to be submitted, except that

individuals may submit one copy.

Comments are to be identified with the

docket number found in brackets in the

heading of this document. Received

comments may be seen in the office

above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

William K. Hubbard,

Associate Commissioner for Policy

Coordination.

[FR Doc. 96–10840 Filed 4–26–96; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD07–96–008]

RIN 2115–AE46

Special Local Regulations; Suncoast

Kilo Run; Suncoast Offshore

Challenge; Suncoast Offshore Grand

Prix; Sarasota, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish special local regulations for

Suncoast Kilo Run, Suncoast Offshore

Challenge and Suncoast Offshore Grand

Prix, all events sponsored by the

S.O.R.A. (Suncoast Racing Association).

The Suncoast Kilo Run event would be

held annually at 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. EDT

(Eastern Daylight Time), on the first

Friday of July. The Suncoast Offshore

Challenge and Suncoast Offshore Grand

Prix events would be held annually at

11 a.m. to 4 p.m. EDT, on the first

Saturday and Sunday of July. These

proposed regulations are intended to

promote safe navigation on the waters in

the Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of

Sarasota and on the waters in North

Sarasota Bay, Florida, by controlling the

traffic entering, exiting, and traveling

within these waters. These proposed

regulations are necessary to provide for

the safety of life on navigable waters

during the event.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 31, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

U.S. Coast Guard Group St. Petersburg,

600 8th Ave. S.E., St. Petersburg, Florida

33701–5099, or may be delivered to

operations office at the same address

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. EDT, Monday

through Friday, except federal holidays.

The telephone number is (813) 824–