Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Notices 31521

1 74 FERC ¶ 61,076 (1996), 61 FR 8611 (March 5,

1996).

2They are: BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. (BP),

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation and

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia)

(filing jointly), the Interstate Natural Gas

Association of America (INGAA), and Williams

Field Services Group, Inc. and Transcontinental Gas

Pipe Line Corporation (Williams) (filing jointly).

3 52 FERC ¶ 61,268 (1990). In Amerada Hess, the

Commission stated it would consider the changing

technical and geographic nature of exploration and

production offshore when applying the primary

function test to offshore facilities. Amerada Hess

provided for a ‘‘sliding scale’’ approach where

facilities with increasing length and diameters

could still be classified as gathering where these

physical factors are a function of the distance from

shore and of the water depth of production areas.

4 876 F. 2d 46 (5th Cir. 1989).

5 74 FERC ¶ 61,219 (1996).

6See, eg., Alternatives to Traditional Cost-ofService Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines, 75

FERC ¶ 61,024 (1996).

7See American Gas Association v. FERC, 888 F.

2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

documents must be filed by providing

the original and the number of copies

provided by the Commission’s

regulations to: The Secretary, Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

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

20426. A copy of any motion to

intervene must also be served upon each

representative of the Applicant

specified in the particular application.

D2. Agency Comments—Federal,

state, and local agencies are invited to

file comments on the described

application. A copy of the application

may be obtained by agencies directly

from the Applicant. If an agency does

not file comments within the time

specified for filing comments, it will be

presumed to have no comments. One

copy of an agency’s comments must also

be sent to the Applicant’s

representatives.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–15692 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RM96–5–001]

Gas Pipeline Facilities and Services on

the Outer Continental Shelf—Issues

Related to the Commission’s

Jurisdiction Under the Natural Gas Act

and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands

Act; Order Dismissing Requests for

Rehearing

Issued: June 14, 1996.

On February 28, 1996, the

Commission issued a Statement of

Policy (policy statement) in this

proceeding which reviewed issues

concerning the status, scope and effect

of its regulation of gathering and

transportation on the Outer Continental

Shelf (OCS).1 The policy statement

articulated, clarified and, to some

extent, modified the criteria the

Commission will use to determine

whether pipeline facilities located on

the OCS have a primary function of

gathering or transmission. Specifically,

the Commission added a new factor to

its existing primary function test for

facilities located in water depths of 200

meters or more. The Commission stated

that such facilities would be presumed

to have a primary purpose of gathering

up to the point or points of potential

connection with the interstate pipeline

grid. From that point on, the

Commission would continue to apply

the existing primary function test.

Four parties filed requests for

rehearing and/or clarification or

reconsideration.2 As discussed below,

the Commission will dismiss the

requests for rehearing, reconsideration

or clarification.

Summary of the Requests

The following issues were raised by

one or more of the parties in their

requests for rehearing, reconsideration

and/or clarification. The parties seek

assurance that the Commission in the

policy statement did not intend to create

a presumption that all facilities located

in water depths of less than 200 meters

are transmission. They contend that the

‘‘bright line’’ test or new factor added to

the primary function test for deep water

facilities is inconsistent with

Commission policy as articulated in

Amerada Hess Corporation (Amerada

Hess).3 Additionally, some parties argue

that any presumption or bright line test

is inconsistent with EP Operating Co. v.

FERC,4 which mandates a case-by-case

application of the physical factors of the

primary function test. Some parties note

that many certificated offshore facilities

are not necessarily transmission

facilities and that the Commission did

not scrutinize the function of such

facilities when certificating them. Thus,

these parties argue that the Commission

has no rational basis for determining

that pipelines are transmission facilities

because of their proximity to certificated

interstate pipelines when the ‘‘inproximity’’ facilities may be

misfunctionalized.

The parties also contend that the

distinction between deep and shallowwater facilities articulated in the policy

statement results in determinations of

primary function based on a pipeline’s

vintage (older offshore pipelines tend to

be in shallower waters and were

certificated) or geographical location,

rather than on the physical factors

applied in the traditional primary

function test. Other parties express

concern that the new approach outlined

in the policy statement will result in the

Commission’s giving undue weight to

certain factors of the primary function

test, such as size, operating pressure and

central point in the field, when

attempting to determine the function of

facilities located in shallower water.

They posit that this occurred in Shell

Gas Pipeline Company,5 where the

Commission applied the approach

outlined in the policy statement for the

first time. Overemphasizing these

factors for offshore facilities, they argue,

is inconsistent with Amerada Hess and

subsequent cases where the sliding scale

approach was used. Additionally, they

argue that the new approach can result

in a single line being considered both

gathering and transmission, which

would be arbitrary and capricious.

Some parties are primarily concerned

that the policy statement did not resolve

issues related to whether there is a level

playing field for regulated and

unregulated offshore pipelines.

Columbia argues that the Commission

erred by not deciding to regulate all

offshore pipelines under the Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Act and by

leaving a dual regulatory scheme in

place. Further, Columbia asserts that the

Commission erred by not initiating a

generic production area rate design

proceeding to address the issues raised

by the commenters in this proceeding.

INGAA maintains that the ability of

interstate pipelines to utilize alternative

ratemaking approaches does not solve

the problems of the dual regulatory

scheme, and that the Commission erred

in the policy statement by so suggesting.

Finally, clarification is sought that the

policy statement was intended to

provide guidance and not intended to

have the force and effect of a rule.

Discussion

The purpose of the policy statement

in this proceeding was to provide the

natural gas industry with guidance by

stating the criteria the Commission will

use to determine the function of

offshore pipelines, especially new

facilities constructed in deep water

producing areas. A policy statement is

not a rule, and generally objections to

such a statement are not directly

reviewable.6 Rather, such review must

await implementation of the policy in a

specific case.7 Therefore, the

Commission declines to consider at this

time the issues raised in the requests for

rehearing, reconsideration or

clarification, but will consider such

issues and arguments in the specific
31522 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 120 / Thursday, June 20, 1996 / Notices

8Supra. note 5.

cases where the policy is applied. In

this regard, we note that many of the

issues raised in the requests for

rehearing in this proceeding are raised

in the rehearing requests filed in Shell

Gas Pipeline Company.8 Therefore, we

are dismissing the requests for

rehearing, reconsideration or

clarification filed in this proceeding.

By the Commission.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–15688 Filed 6–19–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–00434; FRL–5367–7]

Proposed Testing Guidelines; Notice

of Availability and Request for

Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: EPA has established a unified

library for test guidelines issued by the

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and

Toxic Substances (OPPTS), and is

announcing the availability of proposed

testing guidelines for Series 870–Health

Effects Test Guidelines. These test

guidelines have been updated and

harmonized, to the extent possible, with

the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD)

guidelines for testing of chemicals, and

other relevant international standards. A

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)

meeting to review the Series 870 test

guidelines will be scheduled for this

summer. Complete details of this

meeting will be announced in a Federal

Register notice.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before August 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments in

triplicate to: By mail: Public Response

and Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In

person: Bring comments to: Rm. 1132,

CM#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to:

guidelines@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

‘‘OPP–00434’’ (FRL–5367–7). No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

Electronic comments on this document

may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions

can be found under

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’

Information submitted as a comment

in response to this notice may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as CBI.

Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the comment that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public docket.

Information not marked confidential

will be included in the public docket

without prior notice. All statements will

be made part of the record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Leonard Keifer, Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics (7403), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone: (202) 260–1548; e-mail:

keifer.leonard@epamail.epa.gov.

By mail: William Sette, Office of

Pesticide Programs (7509C), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone: (703) 305–6375; e-mail:

sette.william@epamail.epa.gov.

Copies of documents may be obtained

by contacting: By mail: Public Docket

and Freedom of Information Section,

Field Operations Division (7506C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In

person or for courier pick-up: Office

location and telephone number: Rm.

1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305–

5805. By internet: e-mail requests to:

guidelines@epamail.epa.gov or via the

EPA Public Access Gopher

(gopher.epa.gov) under the heading

‘‘Environmental Test Methods and

Guidelines.’’

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Agency is revising its test guidelines for

Series 870—Health Effects Test

Guidelines. Guidelines in the 870 Series

are for use by the Office of Pesticide

Programs (OPP) and the Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)

and have been harmonized with those of

OECD. The proposed guidelines are

being made available for comment. All

interested parties are encouraged to

submit comments on the proposed

guidelines. Specific comments should

reference the specific number and

paragraph or subparagraph of the

appropriate proposed guideline.

Recommended technical or scientific

changes/modifications should be

supported by current scientific/

technical knowledge and include

supporting references. References may

be to the published literature, studies

submitted to the Agency in support of

registration, and unpublished data.

Citations must be sufficiently detailed

so as to allow the Agency to obtain

copies of the original documents and

unpublished data supplied to allow

their evaluation.

A record has been established for this

notice under docket number ‘‘OPP–

00434’’ (including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8:00

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The

public record is located in Rm. 1132 of

the Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations

Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

guidelines@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for this notice, as

well as the public version, as described

above will be kept in paper form.

Accordingly, EPA will transfer all

comments received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official record which will also include

all comments submitted directly in

writing. The official record is the paper

record maintained at the address in

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of this

document.

The following is the complete list of

proposed guidelines being made

available at this time: