Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36633 

1This series of orders began with the 

Commission’s issuance of Standards for Business 

Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Order 

No. 587, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,038 (1996). 

2Standards for Business Practices for Interstate 

Natural Gas Pipelines; Standards for Business 

Practices for Public Utilities, Order No. 698, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,251 (2007), order on clarification 

and reh’g, Order No. 698–A, 121 FERC ¶ 61,264 

(2007). 

3Standards for Business Practices for Interstate 

Natural Gas Pipelines; Standards for Business 

Practices for Public Utilities, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 32,609 (2006) (NOPR). 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 15, 

2009. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager,Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–17679 Filed 7–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 284 

[Docket No. RM96–1–030] 

Standards for Business Practices for 

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines 

Issued July 16, 2009. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

proposing to amend its regulations 

prescribing standards for interstate 

natural gas pipeline business practices 

and electronic communications (found 

at 18 CFR 284.12) to incorporate by 

reference standards adopted by the 

Wholesale Gas Quadrant of the North 

American Energy Standards Board 

(NAESB) for Index-Based Capacity 

Release and Flexible Delivery and 

Receipt Points. These standards can be 

obtained from NAESB at 1301 Fannin, 

Suite 2350, Houston, TX 77002, 713– 

356–0060, http://www.naesb.org, and 

are available for viewing in the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

The proposed standard for Flexible 

Delivery and Receipt Points allows 

natural gas-fired generators easier access 

to fuel at times when capacity is scarce. 

The proposed standard for Index-Based 

Capacity Release provides clarity on the 

timing and use of price indices for 

pricing and arranging index-based 

capacity release transactions. 

DATES: Comments are due September 8, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number RM96–1– 

030, by any of these methods: 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

www.ferc.gov. Documents created 

electronically using word processing 

software should be filed in native 

applications or print-to-PDF format and 

not in a scanned format. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand deliver an original 

and 14 copies of their comments to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Irwin (technical issues), Office of 

Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6454; 

Kay I. Morice (technical issues), Office 

of Energy Market Regulation, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–6507; 

Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of 

the General Counsel, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8321. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 128 FERC 

¶ 61,031. 

Standards for Business Practices for 

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines; Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking 

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) proposes to 

amend its regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 

to incorporate by reference the 

consensus standards adopted by the 

Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) of the 

North American Energy Standards 

Board (NAESB) that (1) permit the use 

of indices to price capacity release 

transactions and (2) afford greater 

flexibility on the receipt and delivery 

points for redirects of scheduled gas 

quantities. 

I. Background 

2. Since 1996, the Commission has 

adopted regulations to standardize the 

business practices and communication 

methodologies of natural gas interstate 

pipelines to create a more integrated 

and efficient pipeline grid. These 

regulations have been promulgated in 

the Order No. 587 series of orders,1

wherein the Commission has 

incorporated by reference standards for 

interstate natural gas pipeline business 

practices and electronic 

communications that were developed 

and adopted by NAESB’s WGQ. Upon 

incorporation by reference by the 

Commission, these standards have 

become a part of the Commission’s 

regulations and have become mandatory 

and binding on the natural gas pipelines 

under the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

3. A cold snap in January 2004 in 

New England highlighted the need for 

better coordination and communication 

between the gas and electric industries 

as coincident peaks occurred in both 

industries making the acquisition of gas 

and transportation by power plant 

operators more difficult. In response to 

this need, in early 2004, NAESB 

established a Gas-Electric Coordination 

Task Force to examine issues related to 

the interrelationship of the gas and 

electric industries and identify potential 

areas for improved coordination through 

standardization. NAESB developed a 

number of standards to enhance the 

coordination of scheduling and other 

business practices between the gas and 

electric industries. On June 27, 2005, 

NAESB filed these standards and 

requested clarification regarding a 

number of additional proposals that it 

was considering, including capacity 

release indexed pricing, the use of 

flexible receipt and delivery points 

upstream of a constraint, and changes to 

the intra-day nomination cycle. 

4. In Order No. 698,2 the Commission 

incorporated these standards by 

reference and provided the clarification 

requested in NAESB’s June 27, 2005 

filing. The NAESB report highlighted 

several issues relating to Commission 

policy that were inhibiting the 

development of additional standards 

and requested Commission guidance 

and clarification on these issues. In the 

NOPR3 and in Order No. 698, the 

Commission provided clarification and 

guidance to NAESB regarding 

Commission policies in the following 

three areas: (1) Uses of gas indices for 

pricing capacity release transactions; (2) 

flexibility in the use of receipt and 

delivery points; and (3) changes to the 

intraday nomination schedule to 

increase the number of scheduling 

opportunities for firm shippers. 

5. On September 3, 2008, NAESB 

submitted a report to the Commission 

with respect to these three issues. 

NAESB reports its membership 

conducted thirteen subcommittee 

meetings, many of which were multiday meetings, held in a one year period 

from June 2007 to July 2008. While the 

standards discussed related only to gas 

issues, NAESB states that all interested 

parties including the Wholesale Electric 

Quadrant membership were asked to 

participate and make their perspectives 

known. Two hundred participants, 

including many from the electric 

industry, participated in these meetings. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
36634 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

4The WGQ adopted the following changes to its 

standards: for index-based pricing of capacity 

release transactions, it modified WGQ Standards 

5.3.1, 5.3.3, and 5.3.26, added WGQ Definitions 

5.2.4 and 5.2.5, and added WGQ Standards 5.3.61, 

5.3.62, 5.3.62a, 5.3.63, 5.3.64, 5.3.65, 5.3.66, 5.3.67, 

5.3.68, and 5.3.69; and for flexible points of receipt 

and delivery, it added WGQ Standard 1.3.80. 

5An index-based release is a transaction in which 

the price for capacity is determined by differentials 

in the value of gas between the upstream and 

downstream market. As the Commission found in 

Order No. 637, the implicit value of transportation 

is the most that any person who can purchase gas 

in the downstream market would pay if it 

purchased gas in the upstream market and had to 

transport it to the downstream market. Regulation 

of Short-Term Natural Gas Transportation Services, 

and Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas 

Transportation Services, Order No. 637, FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 31,091, at 31,271 (2000). 

6We understand NAESB’s use of the phrase nonpublic to refer to commercial indices that charge 

subscription or license fees. 

7See NAESB WGQ 2007 Annual Plan Item 7a/ 

NAESB WGQ 2008 Annual Plan Item 4a/NAESB 

WGQ 2009 Annual Plan Item 4. 

8 18 CFR 284.221(g) & (h). 

9See Order No. 698, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,251 

at P 7–8. 

10This process first requires a super-majority vote 

of 17 out of 25 members of the WGQ’s Executive 

Committee with support from at least two members 

from each of the five industry segments— 

Distributors, End Users, Pipelines, Producers, and 

Services (including marketers and computer service 

providers). For final approval, 67 percent of the 

WGQ’s general membership voting must ratify the 

standards. 

6. NAESB’s September 2008 report 

indicates that the WGQ has adopted 

business practice standards for (1) 

increasing the flexibility of gas receipt 

and delivery points and (2) index-based 

pricing for capacity releases. In 

addition, despite holding 12 meetings 

with respect to modifying the intra-day 

nomination schedule, NAESB reports 

that none of the standards proposed 

achieved a sufficient consensus. 

II. Discussion 

7. We recognize that the issues 

considered by NAESB were neither 

simple nor straightforward, and very 

much appreciate the hard work, and 

many hours committed by NAESB, and 

the 200 volunteers that participated in 

the process of developing and 

considering these standards. We 

propose to incorporate by reference the 

standards developed by NAESB with 

respect to index pricing and to flexible 

receipt and delivery points.4 These 

standards will not only assist in 

providing gas for generation, but will 

provide enhanced flexibility to all 

shippers. The index pricing standards 

provide rules under which releasing and 

replacement shippers can create rate 

formulas for capacity release that will 

better reflect the value of capacity. 

These standards also reflect a reasonable 

compromise for dealing with copyright 

issues that arise in using gas indices to 

set prices, ensuring that shippers have 

a reasonable choice of available indices 

to use while equitably spreading the 

costs entailed by the use of such indices 

among the pipelines and shippers. The 

standard for the use of flexible receipt 

and delivery points will enable all 

shippers to quickly and efficiently 

redirect gas when such gas may be 

needed by gas generators or other 

shippers. With respect to the question of 

intra-day nominations on which 

consensus was not reached, we do not 

find a sufficient basis in the NAESB 

record for us to propose any changes to 

our current regulations and policies. 

A. NAESB’s Business Practice 

Standards for Index-Based Pricing for 

Capacity Release Transactions and 

Flexible Point Rights 

8. In Order No. 698, the Commission 

explained that under its regulations, 

releasing shippers are permitted to use 

price indices or other formula rates on 

all pipelines, regardless of whether the 

pipeline has included a provision 

allowing the use of indices as part of its 

discounting provisions.5 The 

Commission asked NAESB to examine 

standards to help ensure that such 

releases can be processed quickly and 

efficiently. 

9. The standards for index-based 

pricing provide that shippers wishing to 

release capacity may use a variety of 

specified indices and methods to 

evaluate bids. The standards provide 

that pipelines must support at least two 

non-public price index references that 

are representative of receipt and 

delivery points on its system,6 and must 

support all price indices it references in 

its gas tariff, or general terms and 

conditions of service. Releasing 

shippers are permitted to use alternative 

indices if the releasing shipper provides 

licenses to the pipeline for the use of 

those indices. The standards provide 

that the releasing shipper is responsible 

for providing the pipeline, and the 

replacement shipper, with the method 

of calculating the reservation rate from 

the index. The pipeline is required to 

adhere to the standard capacity release 

timeline for processing releases if the 

releasing shipper has provided the 

pipeline with sufficient instructions to 

evaluate corresponding bids. However, 

if the offer includes unfamiliar or 

unclear terms and conditions, or an 

index not supported by the pipeline, the 

pipeline may process the release on a 

slower time frame. 

10. At the time NAESB filed its report 

with the Commission, it had not 

completed the technical standards for 

implementation of these standards. 

However, these technical standards 

have been completed,7 and will be 

included in version 1.9 of the standards. 

11. The Commission regulations 

require that pipelines permit shippers 

flexibility to change their receipt and 

delivery points on both a primary and 

secondary basis.8 In its June 27, 2005 

report to the Commission, NAESB 

requested clarification regarding its 

consideration of a possible standard that 

would permit shippers to shift gas 

deliveries from a primary to a secondary 

delivery point when a pipeline 

constraint occurs upstream of both 

points.9 In Order No. 698, the 

Commission explained that, under its 

policies, pipelines must implement 

within-the-path scheduling under 

which a shipper seeking to use a 

secondary delivery point within its 

scheduling path has priority over 

another shipper seeking to use the same 

delivery point but that point is outside 

of its transportation path, and found 

that NAESB’s proposal regarding 

scheduling through upstream constraint 

points appeared consistent with the 

Commission’s regulations and policy. 

12. In its September 3, 2008 filing, 

NAESB included a standard that would 

require pipelines to permit shippers to 

redirect scheduled quantities to other 

receipt points upstream of a constraint 

point or delivery points downstream of 

a constraint point without a requirement 

that the quantities be rescheduled 

through the point of constraint. This 

standard will provide shippers, 

including gas-fired generators, with 

increased flexibility to obtain capacity 

or gas from other shippers without 

adversely affecting other shippers’ 

scheduling rights. 

13. The standards for indexed 

capacity releases and flexible point 

rights appear to establish reasonable 

methods of providing enhanced 

flexibility to shippers and to increase 

the efficiency of the interstate pipeline 

grid, and we propose to incorporate 

these standards by reference. 

14. NAESB approved the new and 

modified standards and related 

definitions under its consensus 

procedures.10 Adoption of consensus 

standards is appropriate because the 

consensus process helps to 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36635 

11Public Law 104–113, 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 

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

12 18 CFR 284.12(b)(1)(i). 

13Standards for Business Practices of Interstate 

Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587–G, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,062, at 30,672 (1998). 

14At that time, NAESB was the Gas Industry 

Standards Board and had not yet expanded to 

include the electric industry or the retail gas and 

electric segments. 

15Central clock time. 16As an example of these comments, see NAESB 

September 3, 2008 filing at 26 (Comments of New 

Jersey Natural Gas Co., New Jersey Natural Gas 

Company, http://naesb.org/pdf3/ 

wgq_060308njng.doc.), Comments of Interested 

LDCs, http://naesb.org/pdf3/wgq_060308ldc.pdf). 

17 Id. 

18As an example, see NAESB September 3, 2008 

filing at 26 (Comments of New England Power 

Generators Association, http://naesb.org/pdf3/ 

wgq_060308nepga.pdf, Independent Power 

Producers, http://naesb.org/pdf3/ 

wgq_060308ippny.pdf.). 

19As an example, see NAESB September 3, 2008 

filing at 26 (Joint Comments of Multiple Entities, 

http://naesb.org/pdf3/wgq_060308aps.pdf for a 

detailed presentation of these arguments). 

20See NAESB September 3, 2008 filing at 26 

(Comments of BG Energy Merchants, http:// 

naesb.org/pdf3/wgq_060308bgem_dmt.doc). 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTT&AA), 

Congress affirmatively requires federal 

agencies to use technical standards 

developed by voluntary consensus 

standards organizations, like NAESB, as 

a means to carry out policy objectives or 

activities determined by the agency.11

B. Intra-Day Nomination Standards 

15. The NAESB report raised the 

possibility of developing standards that 

would offer an additional intra-day 

nomination cycle with rights for firm 

shippers to bump interruptible 

nominations. In Order No. 698, the 

Commission stated that NAESB should 

actively consider whether changes to 

existing intra-day schedules would 

benefit all shippers, and provide better 

coordination between gas and electric 

scheduling. 

16. The Commission’s regulations 

provide that nominations by shippers 

with firm transportation priority have 

priority over nominations by shippers 

with interruptible service.12 In Order 

No. 587–G,13 issued in 1998, the 

Commission, however, followed the Gas 

Industry Standards Board 14 consensus 

and permitted pipelines with three 

intra-day nomination opportunities to 

exempt the last intra-day opportunity 

from bumping. The Commission found 

that the consensus created a fair balance 

between firm shippers, who will have 

had two opportunities to reschedule 

their gas, and interruptible shippers and 

will provide some necessary stability in 

the nomination system, so that shippers 

can be confident by mid-afternoon that 

they will receive their scheduled flows. 

17. The NAESB standards currently 

provide shippers four nomination 

opportunities: The Timely Nomination 

Period (11:30 a.m. CCT15 the day prior 

to gas flow), the Evening Nomination 

Cycle (6 p.m. CCT the day before gas 

flow); Intra-Day 1 (10 a.m. CCT the day 

of gas flow); and Intra-Day 2 (5 p.m. 

CCT the day of gas flow). A firm 

nomination for the first three 

nomination cycles has priority over (can 

bump) an already scheduled 

interruptible (IT) nomination. But at the 

Intra-Day 2 cycle, a firm nomination 

will not bump already scheduled 

interruptible service. 

Cycle 

Nomination 

time 

(CCT) 

Nomination 

effective Bumping IT Bumping notice 

Schedule 

confirmed 

Timely .......................................................... 11:30 am ............ Day-Ahead ........ Yes ...................... 4:30 pm ............... 4:30 pm. 

Evening ....................................................... 6 pm ................... Day-Ahead ........ Yes ...................... 10 pm .................. 10 pm. 

Intra-Day 1 .................................................. 10 am ................. Day of ................ Yes ...................... 2 pm .................... 2 pm. 

Intra-Day 2 .................................................. 5 pm ................... Day of ................ No ....................... NA ....................... 9 pm. 

18. The NAESB committee held 12 

meetings and considered a wide variety 

of possible revisions to the nomination 

schedule adopted in 1998. These 

included complete revisions of the 

timeline, including changing the gas 

day; adding intra-day nomination 

opportunities within the existing 

framework; changing the Intra-Day 2 to 

a bump nomination while adding an 

additional no-bump nomination period, 

and merely changing the Intra-Day 2 

cycle to a bumpable nomination. None 

of these proposals achieved a sufficient 

consensus at the subcommittee level. 

19. Comments to the Executive 

Committee were mixed on whether any 

of these options were practicable, cost 

effective, or feasible. Some commenters 

contended that changing the gas 

nomination schedule would accomplish 

little for gas electric coordination 

without a coordinated development of a 

standardized electric schedule.16 They 

also argued that no compelling need 

existed to change the gas schedule and 

that such a change could cause 

problems, because: Problems persist 

with pipeline confirmations under the 

current gas nomination timeline and 

increasing the number of nomination 

cycles or shortening confirmation 

windows is likely to exacerbate those 

problems; modifying the intraday 

nomination timeline to increase and/or 

add to the number of bumpable cycles 

will further reduce the time to react to 

a cut in interruptible service; increasing 

the number of bumpable nomination 

cycles or delaying scheduling will 

decrease the number of available 

counter-parties in the event of a cut in 

scheduled volumes; adding more and 

later nomination cycles will cause 

staffing issues for LDCs, pipelines and 

gas marketers resulting in increased 

costs with no assurance of 

commensurate benefits.17 A number of 

commenters also highlighted the need, 

in their view, to retain the no-bump rule 

for interruptible transportation as being 

important for electric generators as well 

as the market in general.18

20. Others, however, argued that 

changes in the operation of the gas 

markets since 1998 warrant ensuring 

that firm shippers receive the full value 

of their firm contracts. These changes 

include the imposition of strict pro rata 

hourly take obligations along with 

significant imbalance charges and 

penalties; the development of the 

organized wholesale electric bid market 

that has increased the need to 

synchronize the scheduling of natural 

gas-fired generation units with dispatch 

notification timelines; the introduction 

of more third-party storage and service 

providers that require synchronization 

of scheduling opportunities in times of 

peak usage; the introduction of hourly 

gas contracting without hourly gas 

scheduling; and technological 

developments that permit automated 

and expedited scheduling.19

21. We agree with BG Energy 

Merchants that ‘‘all in all it was a 

difficult task that FERC gave to 

NAESB,’’ 20 and we appreciate the 

amount of work and time committed to 

the consideration of these issues. 

Ultimately, however, we agree with the 

Interested LDCs that ‘‘a simple, one-size 

fits-all solution does not exist that will 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
36636 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

21NAESB September 3, 2008 filing at 26 

(Comments of Interested LDCs, http://naesb.org/ 

pdf3/wgq_060308ldc.pdf). 

22For example, we do not know the costs to the 

pipelines and practical implications to shippers or 

others of creating more numerous intra-day 

nomination opportunities or adding a late 

nomination period well after normal business 

hours. 

23Promotion of a More Efficient Capacity Release 

Market, Order No. 712, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,271 

(2008), order on reh’g, Order No. 712–A, 73 Fed. 

Reg. 72,692 (December 1, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,284 (2008). 

24The total annualized cost for the two 

information collections is $226,800. This number is 

reached by multiplying the total hours to prepare 

a response (hours) by an hourly wage estimate of 

$150 (a composite estimate that includes legal, 

technical and support staff rates). $226,800 = $150 

× 1,512. 

25 5 CFR 1320.11. 

solve the complex issue of coordinating 

between the electric and gas industries, 

[because] the diversity within the 

electric industry (e.g., differing 

timelines, system peaks times, 

generation mixes, and prevalence of 

firm gas service), in particular, does not 

suggest that revising gas scheduling 

procedures is the most effective means 

to improve coordination.’’ 21 Based on 

the extensive NAESB record that we 

reviewed, we are not convinced that we 

have a sufficient basis for finding that 

any of the proposed revisions create a 

superior balance of interests compared 

with the original consensus.22 We 

therefore are not proposing any changes 

to our regulations with regard to intraday nominations. 

22. The changes we implemented in 

Order No. 712,23 the removal of the 

price ceiling for short term releases and 

the use of asset manager agreements, 

together with the standards that NAESB 

has approved for index pricing for 

capacity release and greater flexibility in 

using receipt and delivery points should 

assist electric generators as well as other 

shippers in obtaining firm 

transportation capacity quickly and 

effecting changes in the way their gas is 

used. Rather than making a nationwide 

change in scheduling affecting all 

pipelines, this is an area best addressed 

by individual pipelines adding 

additional nomination opportunities or 

services to better accommodate specific 

conditions of their systems and the 

needs of gas-fired generation within 

their regions. 

III. Notice of Use of Voluntary 

Consensus Standards 

23. Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–119 (section 11) (February 

10, 1998) provides that federal agencies 

should publish a request for comment in 

a NOPR when the agency is seeking to 

issue or revise a regulation proposing to 

adopt a voluntary consensus standard or 

a government-unique standard. In this 

NOPR, the Commission is proposing to 

incorporate by reference voluntary 

consensus standards developed by the 

WGQ. 

IV. Information Collection Statement 

24. The following collection of 

information contained in this proposed 

rule has been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507(d) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 

U.S.C. 3507(d). The Commission solicits 

comments on the Commission’s need for 

this information, whether the 

information will have practical utility, 

the accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondents’ burden, 

including the use of automated 

information techniques. The following 

burden estimates include the costs to 

implement the WGQ’s definitions and 

business practice standards for 

interstate natural gas pipelines and 

electronic communication protocols. 

The burden estimates are primarily 

related to start-up to implement these 

standards and regulations and will not 

result in ongoing costs. 

Data collection Number of 

respondents 

Number of 

responses 

per respondent 

Hours per 

response 

Total number 

of hours 

FERC–549C ............................................................................. 126 1 12 1,512 

Totals ................................................................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 1,512 

Total Annual Hours for Collection 

(Reporting and Recordkeeping, (if 

appropriate)) = 1,512. 

Information Collection Costs: The 

Commission seeks comments on the 

costs to comply with these 

requirements. It has projected the 

average annualized cost for all 

respondents to be the following: 24

FERC–549C 

Annualized Capital/Startup 

Costs ............................. $226,800 

Annualized Costs (Operations & Maintenance) .. N/A 

Total Annualized 

Costs ...................... 226,800 

25. OMB regulations 25 require OMB 

to approve certain information 

collection requirements imposed by 

agency rule. The Commission is 

submitting notification of this proposed 

rule to OMB. These information 

collections are mandatory requirements. 

Title: Standards for Business Practices 

of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines 

(FERC–549C). 

Action: Proposed collections. 

OMB Control No.: 1902–0174. 

Respondents: Business or other for 

profit (Natural Gas Pipelines (Not 

applicable to small business.)). 

Frequency of Responses: One-time 

implementation (business procedures, 

capital/start-up). 

32. Necessity of Information: This 

proposed rule, if implemented, would 

upgrade the Commission’s current 

business practice and communication 

standards to provide for greater 

accessibility to fuel in times of scarcity 

and rules to allow for alternative indices 

to establish rates for capacity release to 

better reflect the value of that capacity. 

The implementation of these standards 

will permit greater flexibility by 

providing a reasonable choice of 

available indices to use while 

simultaneously providing a greater 

equalization of costs for their use. 

Incorporation of the standard for use of 

flexible receipt and delivery points 

allows for the efficient redirection of gas 

when it may be needed by gas-fired 

generators or other shippers thereby 

improving the reliability in both the 

electric and gas industries. 

33. The implementation of these data 

requirements will help the Commission 

carry out its responsibilities under the 

Natural Gas Act of promoting the 

efficiency and reliability of the gas 

industries’ operations. The 

Commission’s Office of Energy Market 

and Regulation will use the data for 

general industry oversight. 

34. Internal Review: The Commission 

has reviewed the requirements 

pertaining to business practices of 

natural gas pipelines and made a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36637 

26Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987). 

27 18 CFR 380.4. 

28See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 

380.4(a)(27). 

29 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

30 5 U.S.C. 601–604. 

preliminary determination that the 

proposed revisions are necessary to 

establish more efficient coordination 

between the gas and electric industries. 

Requiring such information ensures 

both a common means of 

communication and common business 

practices to limit miscommunication for 

participants engaged in the sale of 

electric energy at wholesale and the 

transportation of natural gas. These 

requirements conform to the 

Commission’s plan for efficient 

information collection, communication, 

and management within the natural gas 

pipeline industries. 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. 

35. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the 

following: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, 

Office of the Executive Director, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 

Tel: (202) 502–8415/Fax: (202) 273– 

0873, E-mail: michael.miller@ferc.gov. 

36. Comments concerning the 

collection of information(s) and the 

associated burden estimate(s), should be 

sent to the contact listed above and to 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 

[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: 

(202) 395–4638, fax: (202) 395–7285]. 

V. Environmental Analysis 

37. 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.26 The Commission has 

categorically excluded certain actions 

from these requirements as not having a 

significant effect on the human 

environment.27 The actions proposed 

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.28 Therefore, an 

environmental assessment is 

unnecessary and has not been prepared 

as part of this NOPR. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

38. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 29 generally requires a 

description and analysis of final rules 

that will have significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In drafting a rule an agency is 

required to: (1) Assess the effect that its 

regulation will have on small entities; 

(2) analyze effective alternatives that 

may minimize a regulation’s impact; 

and (3) make the analysis available for 

public comment.30 Based on our 

analysis of the requirements proposed 

in this NOPR, we do not think the 

proposed rule will have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

VII. Comment Procedures 

39. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit written comments on 

the NAESB business practice standards 

proposed for incorporation by reference 

in this NOPR, as well as any related 

matters or alternative proposals that 

commenters may wish to discuss. 

Comments are due September 8, 2009. 

Comments must refer to Docket No. 

RM96–1–030, and must include the 

commenter’s name, the organization 

they represent, if applicable, and their 

address. Comments may be filed either 

in electronic or paper format. 

40. Comments may be filed 

electronically via the eFiling link on the 

Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts 

most standard word processing formats 

and commenters may attach additional 

files with supporting information in 

certain other file formats. Commenters 

filing electronically do not need to make 

a paper filing. Commenters that are not 

able to file comments electronically 

must send an original and 14 copies of 

their comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. For paper 

filings, the original and 14 copies of 

such comments should be submitted to 

the Secretary of the Commission, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

41. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely, as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commenters 

on this proposal are not required to 

serve copies of their comments on other 

commenters. 

VIII. Document Availability 

42. 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.gov) 

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, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 

20426. 

43. From FERC’s Home Page on the 

Internet, this information is available in 

eLibrary. The full text of this document 

is available in eLibrary both in PDF and 

Microsoft Word format for viewing, 

printing, and/or downloading. To access 

this document in eLibrary, type the 

docket number, excluding the last three 

digits of this document in the docket 

number field. 

44. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during 

the Commission’s normal business 

hours. For assistance, contact FERC 

Online Support by e-mail at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or by 

telephone at 202–502–6652 (toll-free at 

(866) 208–3676) or for TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284 

Incorporation by reference, Natural 

gas, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Commission proposes to amend part 

284, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

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. 7101–7352; 43 U.S.C. 1331– 

1356. 

2. Section 284.12 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through 

(a)(1)(vii) to read as follows: 

§ 284.12 Standards for pipeline business 

operations and communications. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Additional Standards (General 

Standards, Creditworthiness Standards, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
36638 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

and Gas/Electric Operational 

Communications Standards) (Version 

1.8, September 30, 2006); 

(ii) Nominations Related Standards 

(Version 1.8, September 30, 2006) and 

including the standards contained in 

NAESB WGQ 2007 Annual Plan Item 

7b/NAESB WGQ 2008 Annual Plan Item 

4b (August 25, 2008); 

(iii) Flowing Gas Related Standards 

(Version 1.8, September 30, 2006); 

(iv) Invoicing Related Standards 

(Version 1.8, September 30, 2006); 

(v) Quadrant Electronic Delivery 

Mechanism Related Standards (Version 

1.8, September 30, 2006) with the 

exception of Standard 4.3.4; 

(vi) Capacity Release Related 

Standards (Sep. 3, 2008) and including 

the standards contained in NAESB 

WGQ 2007 Annual Plan Item 7a/NAESB 

WGQ 2008 Annual Plan Item 4a (August 

25, 2008) and the Standards included in 

NAESB WGQ 2007 Annual Plan Item 

7a/NAESB WGQ 2008 Annual Plan Item 

4a/NAESB WGQ 2009 Annual Plan Item 

4; and 

(vii) Internet Electronic Transport 

Related Standards (Version 1.8, 

September 30, 2006) with the exception 

of Standard 10.3.2. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–17333 Filed 7–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 199 

[DOD–2008–HA–0025; 0720–AB20] 

TRICARE; Changes Included in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007; Improvements to 

Descriptions of Cancer Screening for 

Women 

AGENCY: TRICARE Management 

Activity, Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department is publishing 

this proposed rule to implement section 

703 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (FY07), Public Law 109–364. 

Specifically, that legislation authorizes 

breast cancer screening and cervical 

cancer screening for female beneficiaries 

of the Military Health System, instead of 

constraining such testing to 

mammograms and Papanicolaou smears. 

The rule allows coverage for ‘‘breast 

cancer screening’’ and ‘‘cervical cancer 

screening’’ for female beneficiaries of 

the Military Health System, instead of 

constraining such testing to 

mammograms and Papanicolaou tests. 

This rule ensures new breast and 

cervical cancer screening procedures 

can be added to the TRICARE benefit as 

such procedures are proven to be a safe, 

effective, and nationally accepted 

medical practice. This amends the 

cancer specific recommendations for 

breast and cervical cancer screenings to 

be brought in line with the processes for 

updating other cancer screening 

recommendations. 

DATES: Written comments will be 

accepted at the address indicated below 

until September 22, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and/or 

RIN, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colonel John Kugler, Office of the Chief 

Medical Officer, TRICARE Management 

Activity, telephone (703) 681–0064. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Department of Defense updated 

coverage for screening with the use of 

the breast MRI for women in a 

designated high risk category as advised 

by the American Cancer Society. In the 

process of providing this additional 

coverage, it was discovered that because 

of statutory wording, there was a group 

of high risk women that are standard 

beneficiaries under the age of 35 for 

whom this coverage could not be 

provided without an amendment in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

Amending the CFR will provide 

coverage for breast MRI screening for all 

Department of Defense beneficiaries in 

the high risk category recommended by 

the American Cancer Society. 

II. Regulatory Procedures 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

E.O. 12866 requires a comprehensive 

regulatory impact analysis be performed 

on any economically significant 

regulatory action, defined as one that 

would result in an annual effect of $100 

million or more on the national 

economy or which would have other 

substantial impacts. The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) requires each 

Federal agency prepare, and make 

available for public comment, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis when the 

agency issues a regulation that would 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule is not an economically 

significant regulatory action and will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

purposes of the RFA, thus this proposed 

rule is not subject to any of these 

requirements. This rule, although not 

economically significant, is a significant 

rule under E.O. 12866 and has been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. Amending the CFR will 

provide coverage for breast MRI 

screening for all Department of Defense 

beneficiaries in the high risk category, if 

necessary. It is critically important that 

we eliminate any potential gaps in 

coverage for high risk individuals as 

quickly as possible. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule will not impose additional 

information collection requirements on 

the public under the Paperwork 

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

3511). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

It has been certified that this rule does 

not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local 

and tribunal governments, in aggregate, 

or by the private section, of $100 

million or more in any one year. 

Executive Order (EO) 13132 

We have examined the impact(s) of 

the proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and 

it does not have policies that have 

Federalism implications that would 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, therefore, 

consultation with State and local 

officials is not required. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 199 

Claims, dental health, health care, 

health insurance, individuals with 

disabilities, Military personnel. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR, Part 199 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS