[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40193-40196]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17904]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81431; File No. SR-GEMX-2017-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Create the
Market Access and Routing Subsidy Program

August 18, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 9, 2017, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to create a subsidy program, the Market
Access and Routing Subsidy (``MARS''), for GEMX Members that provide
certain order routing functionalities \3\ to other GEMX Members and/or
use such functionalities themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The order routing functionalities permit a GEMX Member to
provide access and connectivity to other Members as well utilize
such access for themselves. The Exchange notes that under this
arrangement it will be possible for one GEMX Member to be eligible
for payments under MARS, while another GEMX Member might potentially
be liable for transaction charges associated with the execution of
the order, because those orders were delivered to the Exchange
through a GEMX Member's connection to the Exchange and that Member
qualified for the MARS Payment.
    Consider the following example: Both Members A and B are GEMX
Members but A does not utilize its own connections to route orders
to the Exchange, and instead utilizes B's connections. Under this
program, B will be eligible for the MARS Payment while A is liable
for any transaction charges resulting from the execution of orders
that originate from A, arrive at the Exchange via B's connectivity,
and subsequently execute and clear at The Options Clearing
Corporation or ``OCC,'' where A is the valid executing clearing
Member or give-up on the transaction. Similarly, where B utilizes
its own connections to execute transactions, B will be eligible for
the MARS Payment, but would also be liable for any transaction
resulting from the execution of orders that originate from B, arrive
at the Exchange via B's connectivity, and subsequently execute and
clear at OCC, where B is the valid executing clearing Member or
give-up on the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    GEMX proposes a new subsidy program, MARS, which would pay a
subsidy to GEMX Members that provide certain order routing
functionalities to other GEMX Members and/or use such functionalities
themselves. Generally, under MARS, GEMX proposes to make payments to
participating GEMX Members to subsidize their costs of providing
routing services to route orders to GEMX. The Exchange believes that
MARS will attract higher volumes of equity and ETF options volume to
the Exchange from non-GEMX market participants as well as GEMX Members.
MARS System Eligibility
    To qualify for MARS, a GEMX Member's order routing functionality
would be required to meet certain criteria. Specifically the Member's
routing system (hereinafter ``System'') would be required to: (1)
Enable the electronic routing of orders to all of the U.S. options
exchanges, including GEMX; (2) provide current consolidated market data
from the U.S. options exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with
GEMX's API to access current GEMX match engine functionality. The
Member's System would also need to cause GEMX to be one of the top four
default destination exchanges for (a) individually executed marketable
orders if GEMX is at the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''),
regardless of size or time or (b) orders that establish a new NBBO on
GEMX's Order Book, but allow any user to manually override GEMX as the
default destination on an order-by-order basis.
    The Exchange would require GEMX Members desiring to participate in
MARS \4\ to complete a form, in a manner prescribed by the Exchange,
and reaffirm their information on a quarterly basis to the Exchange.
Any GEMX Member would be permitted to apply for MARS, provided the
above-referenced requirements are met, including a robust and reliable
System. The Member would be solely responsible for implementing and
operating its System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If a GEMX Member desires to qualify for MARS, that Member
must submit an application and certify to the System Eligibility
requirements for the entire time period in which the Member will be
eligible for MARS Rebates. A GEMX Member may apply anytime during
the month in which the GEMX Member desires to participant in MARS
and would be eligible for the entire month, provided the GEMX Member
certified System Eligibility for that entire month. For example, a
GEMX Member submitting an application on the 15th of the month,
would have to certify System Eligibility for that entire month. A
form must be submitted no later than the last business day of the
month in which the GEMX Member desires to participate in MARS. The
application will require the GEMX Member to identify the GEMX Member
seeking the MARS Payment and must list, among other things, the
connections utilized by the GEMX Member to provide Exchange access
to other GEMX Members and/or itself. MARS Payments would be made one
month in arrears (i.e., a MARS Payment earned for activity in
September would be paid to the qualifying GEMX Member in October),
as is the case with all other transactional payments and assessments
made by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARS Eligible Contracts
    A MARS Payment would be made to GEMX Members that have System
Eligibility and have routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts
daily in a month, which were executed on GEMX. For the purpose of
qualifying for the MARS Payment, Eligible Contracts would include Non-
Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FARMM) \5\, Firm Proprietary \6\/Broker-
Dealer \7\ and Professional Customer \8\ Orders that are executed.
Eligible Contracts do not

include qualified contingent cross or ``QCC'' Orders \9\ or Price
Improvement Mechanism or ``PIM'' Orders.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange.
    \6\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
Member for its own proprietary account.
    \7\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a Member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    \8\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \9\ A QCC Order is comprised of an originating order to buy or
sell at least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a
qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in Supplementary
Material .01 below, coupled with a contra-side order or orders
totaling an equal number of contracts. See Rule 715(j).
    \10\ Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') is the Exchange's
price improvement mechanism for crossing transactions. See Rule 723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GEMX Members using an order routing functionality provided by
another Member or its own functionality will continue to be required to
comply with best execution obligations. Specifically, just as with any
Priority Customer \11\ order and any other routing functionality, a
GEMX Member will continue to have an obligation to consider the
availability of price improvement at various markets and whether
routing a Priority Customer order through a functionality that
incorporates the features described above would allow for access to
such opportunities if readily available. Moreover, a GEMX Member would
need to conduct best execution evaluations on a regular basis, at a
minimum quarterly, that include its use of any router incorporating the
features described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in GEMX Rule 100(a)(37A).
Unless otherwise noted, the term ``Priority Customer'' includes
``Retail.'' A ``Retail'' order is a Priority Customer order that
originates from a natural person, provided that no change is made to
the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and
the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARS Payment
    GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have executed the
requisite number of Eligible Contracts in a month would be paid the
following per contract rebates:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Average daily
                  Tiers                       volume       MARS payment
                                             (``ADV'')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................          10,000           $0.07
2.......................................          15,000            0.10
3.......................................          20,000            0.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specified MARS Payment will be paid on all executed Eligible
Contracts that add liquidity, which are routed to GEMX through a
participating GEMX Member's System and meet the requisite Eligible
Contracts ADV. No payment will be made with respect to orders that are
routed to GEMX, but not executed. This three-tiered proposal is
intended to encourage GEMX Members to execute the maximum number of
contracts to achieve the highest rebate.
    No payment will be made with respect to orders that are routed to
GEMX, but not executed.\12\ Further, a GEMX Member would not be
entitled to receive any other revenue \13\ for the use of its System
specifically with respect to orders routed to GEMX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A GEMX Member will not be entitled to receive any other
revenue for the use of its System specifically with respect to
orders routed to GEMX.
    \13\ This requirement would not prevent the Member from charging
fees (for example, a flat monthly fee) for the general use of its
System. Nor would it prevent the Member from charging fees or
commissions in accordance with its general practices with respect to
transactions effected through its System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add the MARS to Section II as Part B of
the Fee Schedule, entitled ``Market Access and Routing Subsidy
(``MARS'').'' Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the Table of
Content to include the new section.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed MARS program is reasonable
because it is designed to attract higher volumes of equity and ETF
options volume to the Exchange, which will benefit all GEMX Members by
offering greater price discovery, increased transparency, and an
increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the proposed subsidy offered by MARS is both equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying GEMX Member that
offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilizes
such functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all
Eligible Contracts.
MARS System Eligibility
    The Exchange believes that requiring GEMX Members to maintain their
Systems according to the various requirements set forth by the Exchange
in order to qualify for the proposed MARS program is reasonable because
the Exchange seeks to encourage market participants to send higher
volumes of orders to GEMX, which will contribute to the Exchange's
depth of book as well as to the top of book liquidity. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed MARS program is reasonable because it
is designed to enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that requiring Members to maintain their Systems
according to the various requirements set forth by the Exchange in
order to qualify for MARS is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because these requirements will uniformly apply to all market
participants desiring to qualify for MARS.
    The Exchange's proposal to require a Member's System to cause GEMX
to be the one of the top four default destination exchanges for (a)
individually executed marketable orders if GEMX is at the NBBO,
regardless of size or time or (b) orders that establish a new NBBO on
GEMX's Order Book, but allow any user to manually override GEMX as the
default destination on an order-by-order basis is reasonable. Offering
Members the ability to select either of the aforementioned requirements
to qualify for System Eligibility would incentivize GEMX Members to
quote at the NBBO on GEMX to qualify for MARS. Also, the Exchange seeks
to encourage market participants to send higher volumes of orders to
GEMX, which will contribute to the Exchange's depth of book as well as
to the top of book liquidity. The MARS program is designed to enhance
the competitiveness of the Exchange and the Exchange believes that
these proposed requirements will cause GEMX to be an attractive market
to send orders. The Exchange also notes that The NASDAQ Options Market
LLC currently offers a MARS program today with similar
requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NOM's Rules at Chapter XV, Section 2(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to require Members to cause GEMX to be the
one of the top four default destination exchanges is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because these requirements will uniformly apply
to all Participants desiring to qualify for MARS. Any GEMX Member
desiring to participate in MARS would be required to meet the
aforementioned System Eligibility requirements.
MARS Eligible Contracts
    The Exchange believes that excluding the volumes attributable to
QCC and PIM Orders is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory for the reasons below. Today, GEMX reduces taker fees
for any GEMX Member that achieves a certain volume threshold as
displayed in Table 1 of the Schedule of Fees.\15\ Today, QCC and PIM
Order volume is counted towards the Total Affiliated Member average
daily volume to meet those tier thresholds and reduce taker fees. The
Exchange does not desire to pay an additional subsidy on top of
offering discounted taker fees for QCC and PIM Orders. Because the
Exchange would calculate Eligible Contracts in the same manner for all
GEMX Members seeking to qualify for MARS, and the calculation would
exclude QCC and

PIM Order volume, the proposal to exclude these volumes from the MARS
Payment is not inequitable or unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See GEMX's Schedule of Fees in Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that while MARS is only being offered to
qualifying GEMX Members for Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FARMM), Firm
Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer equity option
Orders and is not including Priority Customer or Market Maker \16\
Orders volume the Exchange believes this is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons below. With respect to
Priority Customer orders, the Exchange notes that, today, Priority
Customer Orders may earn the highest Market Maker rebates available on
GEMX.\17\ The Exchange believes that the availability of these rebates
for Priority Customer Orders does not warrant paying an additional
subsidy on Priority Customer Orders for MARS. With respect to Market
Maker Orders, today the Exchange offers certain rebates on Market Maker
Orders.\18\ The Exchange believes that these rebates provide ample
incentive for attracting Market Maker Orders to the Exchange and that
no further subsidy is warranted at this time.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See GEMX Rule
100(a)(25).
    \17\ See GEMX's Schedule of Fees in Section I.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Market Maker and Priority Customer Orders are eligible for
higher maker rebates based on achieving volume thresholds in Table 1
below. GEMX Members who do not achieve a higher Tier under Table 1
will receive Tier 1 maker rebates. See GEMX's Schedule of Fees in
Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposed MARS Subsidy is designed to attract higher
margin business to the Exchange. To offer the proposed subsidy on
Priority Customer or Market Maker Orders would require funding from
some other source, such as raising fees for other participants. As a
result, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to only count Non-
Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FARMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and
Professional Customer Orders toward the Eligible Contracts, which
unlike Priority Customer and Market Maker Orders are not eligible for
Market Maker rebates today beyond $0.25 per contract on GEMX. The
Exchange notes that it is commonplace within the options industry for
exchanges to charge different rates and/or offer different rebates
depending upon the capacity in which a participant is trading. For
these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal to only count
certain order flow as Eligible Contracts is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons mentioned herein.
MARS Payment
    The Exchange's proposal to pay a MARS Payment based on certain
average daily volumes for Eligible Contracts, which add liquidity, is
reasonable because the Exchange believes that the MARS program will
attract order flow which would be beneficial for all GEMX Members in
that it would generate greater price discovery, increased transparency,
and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. The MARS
Payments should enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange. Further,
the proposed tier structure would allow GEMX Members to price their
services at a level that will enable them to attract order flow from
market participants who would otherwise utilize an existing front-end
order entry mechanism instead of incurring the cost in time and money
to develop their own internal systems to be able to deliver orders
directly to the Exchange's System. The Exchange also seeks to reward
market participants that bring a greater amount of order flow to the
Exchange by paying a higher rebate based on the average daily volume
that qualified as Eligible Contracts.\20\ The Exchange believes that
the tiers are reasonable because the Exchange is incentivizing GEMX
Members to transact a greater amount of qualifying volume to earn the
rebate. The additional order flow will benefit all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Exchange proposes to pay a $0.07 per contract rebate to
qualifying GEMX Members who transact 10,000 ADV; a rebate of $0.10
per contract to qualifying GEMX Members who transact 15,000 ADV and
a $0.13 per contact to qualifying GEMX Members who transact 20,000
ADV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to pay a MARS Payment based on certain
average daily volumes for Eligible Contracts, which add liquidity, is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
uniformly pay all GEMX Members the proposed rebates specified in the
proposed MARS Payment tiers provided the GEMX Member has executed the
requisite number of Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the Exchange believes
that the proposed MARS Payments offered by the Exchange are equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying GEMX Member that
offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilizes
such functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all
Eligible Contracts. The Exchange believes that the tiers are equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would pay the same
rebates to all qualifying GEMX Members who transact the requisite
volume to earn the rebate.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to pay the proposed MARS Payment to GEMX
Members that have System Eligibility and have executed the Eligible
Contracts, even when a different GEMX Member may be liable for
transaction charges resulting from the execution of the orders upon
which the subsidy might be paid. The Exchange notes that this sort of
arrangement already exists on The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM'')
with its MARS Program.\21\ The intent of the MARS Program is to
incentivize GEMX Members to offer order routing functionalities to
other GEMX Members and/or use such functionalities themselves. By
paying the MARS Payments to GEMX Members that have System Eligibility,
the Exchange is providing an incentive for GEMX Members to offer the
order routing functionalities described in this proposal. Also, all
qualifying GEMX Members would be uniformly paid the subsidy on all
qualifying volume that was routed by them to the Exchange and executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See note 14 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that preventing Members from receiving any
other revenue for the use of its routing system, specifically with
respect to orders routed to GEMX is reasonable because Members could
still charge fees for the general use of its order routing system as
well as charging fees or commissions in accordance with its general
practices with respect to transactions effected through its system. The
Exchange believes that preventing Members from receiving any other
revenue for the use of its routing system, specifically with respect to
orders routed to GEMX is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the Exchange would uniformly apply the MARS requirements to all
qualifying GEMX Members.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other

venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges
and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from
compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges.
Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and
because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes
in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely
limited.
MARS System Eligibility
    The Exchange believes that requiring Members to maintain their
order routing systems according to the various requirements set forth
by the Exchange in order to qualify for MARS does not create an undue
burden on intra-market competition because the proposed requirements
will uniformly apply to all market participants desiring to qualify for
MARS.
MARS Eligible Contracts
    The Exchange believes that excluding QCC and PIM Orders does not
create an undue burden on intra-market competition because these types
of orders will uniformly be excluded from the volume calculation for
all qualifying GEMX Members for MARS.
    The Exchange believes that excluding Priority Customer and Market
Makers Orders from the types of orders that would be eligible for MARS
does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because
Priority Customer and Market Makers Orders are eligible for rebates
today and reduced fees.
MARS Payment
    The Exchange believes that paying the proposed tiered MARS Payments
to qualifying GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have
executed the Eligible Contracts does not create an undue burden on
intra-market competition, even when a different GEMX Member, other than
the GEMX Member receiving the subsidy, may be liable for transaction
charges, because this sort of arrangement should encourage GEMX Members
to offer order routing functionalities to other market participants.
    The Exchange believes that paying the proposed tiered MARS Payments
to qualifying GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have
executed the Eligible Contracts in a month, does not create an undue
burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange would count all
Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FARMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer
and Professional Customer Order volume toward the Eligible Contracts.
Priority Customer and Market Maker Orders are offered other pricing
incentives today in the form of enhanced rebates and lower fees.\22\
The MARS Program should generate increased order flow which should
bring increased liquidity to the Exchange for the benefit of all market
participants. To the extent the purpose of the proposed MARS program is
achieved, all market participants should benefit from the improved
market liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See GEMX's Schedule of Fees at Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that preventing Members from receiving any
other revenue for the use of its routing system, specifically with
respect to orders routed to GEMX does not create undue burden on intra-
market competition because the Exchange would continue to uniformly
apply its MARS requirements to all GEMX Members.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\23\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \24\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-GEMX-2017-39 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2017-39. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2017-39 and should be
submitted on or before September 14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17904 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41038-41039]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18294]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0690]

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement: Environmentally
Friendly Buoy Mooring System

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is announcing its intent to enter into a
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with American
Underwater Contractors, Inc. (AUC) to develop, demonstrate, evaluate
and document the use of environmentally friendly buoy mooring systems
(line and anchor) attached to a navigational buoy to determine the
feasibility and practicality of the Coast Guard using both helix
(screw) anchors and elastic mooring lines in environmentally sensitive
areas. While the Coast Guard is currently considering partnering with
AUC, we are soliciting public comment on the possible nature of and
participation of other parties in the proposed CRADA. In addition, the
Coast Guard also invites other potential non-Federal participants, who
have the interest and capability to bring similar contributions to this
type of research, to consider submitting proposals for consideration in
similar CRADAs.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or
before September 27, 2017.
    Synopses of proposals regarding future CRADAs must reach the Coast
Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) on or before September 27,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments online at http://www.regulations.gov
following Web site instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
or wish to submit proposals for future CRADAs, contact Ms. Danielle
Elam, Project Official, Environment and Waterways Branch, U.S. Coast
Guard Research and Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT
06320, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We request public comments on this notice. Although we do not plan
to respond to comments in the Federal Register, we will respond
directly to commenters and may modify our proposal in light of
comments.
    Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2017-0690 and
should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You
should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you
if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all
comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that
any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the
Federal Register Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR
3316, Jan. 17, 2008). We also accept anonymous comments.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the Coast Guard
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Documents mentioned in this
notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
    Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to the Docket
Management Facility. Instead, submit them directly to the Coast Guard
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Discussion

    CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).\1\ A CRADA promotes
the transfer of technology to the private sector for commercial use, as
well as specified research or development efforts that are consistent
with the mission of the Federal parties to the CRADA. The Federal party
or parties agree with one or more non-Federal parties to share research
resources, but the Federal party does not contribute funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The statute confers this authority on the head of each
Federal agency. The Secretary of DHS's authority is delegated to the
Coast Guard and other DHS organizational elements by DHS Delegation
No. 0160.1, para. II.B.34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that
CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have
a specific purpose and should not be confused with procurement
contracts, grants, and other type of agreements.
    Under the proposed CRADA, the R&D Center will collaborate with one
non-Federal participant. Together, the R&D Center and the non-Federal
participant will collect information/data for performance, reliability,
maintenance, and environmental impact of the embedment anchor and
elastic mooring line. The embedment anchor and elastic mooring line
will be placed in Mullet Key Channel for a period of two years, where
it will be visually inspected in-situ quarterly.
    Once the two years are complete, the embedment anchor and elastic
mooring line will be removed from the water, inspected and then go
through destructive testing.
    We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the
proposed CRADA will include the following:
    (1) Provide appropriate staff with pertinent expertise to take the
lead in accomplishing the required tasks;
    (2) Draft the demonstration plan;
    (3) Provide all support resources, including travel for Coast Guard
staff that supports this CRADA;
    (4) Obtain, transport and provide divers for the installation of
the mooring system;
    (5) Provide a Coast Guard boat platform and qualified Coast Guard
operators for the installation and retrieval of the buoys;
    (6) Provide all the resources required (except the mooring line,
helical anchor and required components provided by the non-Federal
participant) for the conduct of the demonstration;
    (7) Collect and analyze data in accordance with the CRADA
demonstration plan; and
    (8) Work with non-Federal participant to develop a Final Report,
which will document the methodologies, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of this CRADA work.
    We anticipate that the non-Federal participants' contributions
under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
    (1) Provide the technical data package for all equipments,
including dimensions, weight, power requirements, and other technical
considerations for additional components to be utilized under this
CRADA;
    (2) Provide for shipment, and delivery of the mooring system
required under this CRADA;
    (3) Provide/pay for travel and other associated personnel costs and
other required expenses.
    The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants
all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard
will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development
costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this
notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be
unclassified and have not more than five single-sided (excluding cover
page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will select proposals at
its sole discretion on the basis of:
    (1) How well they communicate an understanding, of and ability to
meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
    (2) How well they address the following criteria:
    (a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party
contributions described, and
    (b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party
contributions described.
    Currently, the Coast Guard is considering AUC for participation in
this CRADA. This consideration is based on the fact that AUC has
demonstrated its technical ability as a U.S. Distributor of embedment
anchors and elastic mooring lines. However, we do not wish to exclude
other viable participants from this or future similar CRADAs.
    This is a technology assessment effort. The goal of the Coast Guard
for this CRADA is to better understand the advantages, disadvantages,
required technology enhancements, performance, costs, and other issues
associated with environmentally friendly mooring systems. Special
consideration will be given to small business firms/consortia, and
preference will be given to business units located in the U.S. This
notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: 7 August 2017.
Bert Macesker,
Executive Director, Acting Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
Research and Development Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-18294 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12879-12886]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03797]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM96-1-042]

Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend
its regulations to incorporate by reference, with certain enumerated
exceptions, the latest version (Version 3.2) of business practice
standards adopted by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant of the North American
Energy Standards Board (NAESB) applicable to natural gas pipelines in
place of the currently incorporated version (Version 3.1) of those
business practice standards. The revisions made by NAESB in this
version of the standards are designed to enhance the natural gas
industries' system and software security measures and to clarify the
processing of certain business transactions.

DATES: Comments are due April 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by the docket number of this
proceeding, may be filed electronically at https://www.ferc.gov/ in
acceptable native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or
picture format. For those unable to file electronically, comments may
be filed by mail or may be hand delivered. Mailed comments should be
addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered
comments should be delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The Comment Procedures
Section of this document contains more detailed filing procedures. The
Comment Procedures Section of this document contains more detailed
filing procedures.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stanley Wolf (Technical Issues), Office of Energy Policy and
Information, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>
Oscar F. Santillana (Technical Issues), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>
Robert McLean (Legal Issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                                                         Paragraph No.

I. Background........................................                  2
II. Discussion.......................................                  5
    A. Modifications to Previous Version of Standards                  8
        1. Modifications in Response to the Sandia                     8
         Surety Assessment...........................
        2. Modifications in Response to Industry                      12
         Request.....................................
    B. Standards Proposed Not To Be Incorporated by                   18
     Reference.......................................
    C. Proposed Implementation Procedures............                 19
III. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards..                 24
IV. Incorporation by Reference.......................                 25
V. Information Collection Statement..................                 35
VI. Environmental Analysis...........................                 42
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act......................                 43
VIII. Comment Procedures.............................                 46
IX. Document Availability............................                 50

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to amend its regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 to incorporate by reference,
with certain enumerated
    2. exceptions,\1\ the latest version (Version 3.2) of business
practice standards adopted by NAESB's WGQ applicable to natural gas
pipelines that NAESB reported to the Commission on August 17, 2020 in
place of the currently incorporated version (Version 3.1) of those
business practice standards. The implementation of these standards and
regulations will promote the additional efficiency and reliability of
the natural gas industries' operations thereby helping the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). In
addition, the proposed revisions are necessary to enhance the natural
gas industries' computer security requirements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As explained below, we are not proposing in this proposed
rule to incorporate by reference the optional model contracts and
the eTariff-related standards included in the North American Energy
Standards Board (NAESB) Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) Version 3.2
package of business practice standards.
    \2\ As explained below, NAESB has developed and adopted, in
conjunction with Sandia National Laboratories, a series of business
practice standards to protect the natural gas industries' internet
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    3. Since 1996, the Commission has adopted regulations to
standardize the business practices and communication methodologies of
interstate natural gas pipelines to create a more integrated and
efficient pipeline grid. These regulations have been promulgated in the
Order No. 587 series of orders,\3\ 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, this
version of the standards will replace the currently incorporated
version (Version 3.1) of those business practice standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This series of orders began with the Commission's issuance
of Standards for Bus. Practices of Interstate Nat. Gas Pipelines,
Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 (July 26, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,038 (1996) (cross-refrenced at 76 FERC ] 61,042).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. On August 17, 2020, NAESB filed a report informing the
Commission that it had adopted and ratified WGQ Version 3.2 of its
business practice standards applicable to interstate natural gas
pipelines. Version 3.2 of the WGQ includes business practice standards
developed and modified in response to industry requests and directives
from the NAESB Board of Directors. This version also includes the
standards developed in response to the recommendations of Sandia
National Laboratory (Sandia),\4\ which in 2019 issued a cybersecurity
surety assessment of the NAESB standards sponsored by DOE (Sandia
Surety Assessment),\5\ and the standards developed to enable the use of
distributed ledger technologies when transacting the NAESB Base
Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Sandia is a multidisciplinary national laboratory and
federally funded research and development center for the U.S.
Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security
Administration that supports numerous federal, state, and local
government agencies, companies, and organizations.
    \5\ In April 2017, NAESB announced that Sandia, through funding
provided by DOE, would be performing a surety assessment of the
NAESB standards. As determined by Sandia and DOE, the purpose of the
surety assessment was to analyze cybersecurity elements within the
standards, focusing on four areas: (1) The NAESB Certification
Program for Accredited Certification Authorities, including the
Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ)-012 Public Key Infrastructure
Business Practice Standards, the NAESB Accreditation Requirements
for Authorized Certificate Authorities, and the Authorized
Certification Authority Process; (2) the WEQ Open Access Same-Time
Information Systems suite of standards; (3) the WGQ and Retail
Markets Quadrant internet Electronic Transport (IET) and Quadrant
Electronic Delivery Mechanism (EDM) Related Standards Manual; and
(4) a high-level dependency analysis between the gas and electric
markets to evaluate the different security paradigms the markets
employ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The NAESB report identifies all the changes made to the WGQ
Version 3.1 Standards and summarizes the deliberations that led to the
changes being made. It also identifies changes to the existing
standards that were considered but not adopted due to a lack of
consensus or other reasons.

II. Discussion

    6. In this NOPR, we propose to incorporate by reference, in our
regulations, Version 3.2 of the NAESB WGQ consensus business practice
standards, with certain exceptions.\6\ We propose that compliance
filings made in accordance with a final rule be made 120 days after
issuance of a final rule in this proceeding or on the first business
day thereafter if falling on a weekend or holiday, with an effective
date 180 days from the date compliance filings are due in this
proceeding or the first business day thereafter if falling on a weekend
or holiday. This will allow time for the Commission to process the
compliance filings before the effective date of the new standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the discussion below we identify the NAESB WGQ Version
3.2 Standards that we propose not to incorporate by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. As the Commission found in Order No. 587, adoption of consensus
standards is appropriate, because the consensus process helps ensure
the reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the standards
draw support from a broad spectrum of industry participants
representing all segments of the industry. Moreover,

because the industry conducts business under these standards, the
Commission's regulations should reflect those standards that have the
widest possible support. In section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Congress affirmatively requires
federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards organizations, like NAESB, to carry out policy
objectives or activities.
    8. We discuss below some specific aspects of NAESB's report.

A. Modifications to Previous Version of Standards

1. Modifications in Response to the Sandia Surety Assessment
    9. NAESB revised previously incorporated standards and developed
new standards in response to the recommendations in the Sandia Surety
Assessment. Specifically, NAESB adopted revisions to the WGQ EDM
Related Business Practice Standards, which establish the framework for
the electronic dissemination and communication of information between
parties in the North American wholesale gas marketplace, and to the WGQ
IET Related Business Practice Standards, which define the
implementation of various technologies necessary to communicate
transactions and other electronic data using standard protocols for
electronic commerce over the internet between trading partners. First,
NAESB adopted two new standards, 4.3.109 and 10.3.28, to provide that
trading partners should evaluate software fixes or patches for known
vulnerabilities within 30 days and implement the fix or patch as soon
as reasonably practicable based on the severity of the risk. Second,
NAESB adopted two new standards, 4.3.110 and 10.3.29, to provide that
trading partners should mutually agree to the version of the EDM and
IET to be used. Third, the new standards specify notification and
coordination timelines with trading partners, where applicable, to
address vulnerable systems or software as soon as possible. Fourth, the
Sandia Surety Assessment recommended that NAESB consider guidelines for
configuration and logging, network traffic monitoring, alerting
systems, and manual continuity of operations in the event of abnormal
behavior or failure conditions within the system. In response, NAESB
added language to new Standards 4.3.110 and 10.3.28 to include both
specific and broad adoptions of such system security measures.
    10. Further, NAESB added language to existing Standards 4.3.60,
4.3.61, 10.2.33, and 10.3.25 to clarify the Transport Layer Security
protocol,\7\ which encrypts data to hide information from electronic
observers on the internet. NAESB also deleted all references to the
Secure Sockets Layer protocol in the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The National Institute of Standards and Technology Special
Pub. 800-52 requires government Transport Layer Security servers and
clients to support Transport Layer Security Version 1.2 and
recommends support for Transport Layer Security Version 1.3 by the
year 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Concerning identification key lengths, the Sandia Surety
Assessment recommended that Rivest-Shamir-Adelman keys \8\ must be no
shorter than 2048 bits, Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm keys
\9\ must be no shorter than 224 bits, Hash \10\ algorithms should be
from the Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA)-2 \11\ or SHA-3 families, and
acceptable Advanced Encryption Standard key lengths range from 128, to
192, to 256. The Sandia Surety Assessment recommended that, in general,
implementors use the largest feasible key length consistent with
implementation of current business processes. In response, NAESB
deleted Standard 4.3.83 to remove legacy support references and
maintain a minimum encryption strength of 128 bits. Further, NAESB
revised existing Standards 10.2.34 and 10.3.15 to delete a proprietary
Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) \12\-related hyperlink and to accommodate
license-free OpenPGP,\13\ respectively. NAESB also adopted a new
Standard 10.2.39 to specify that OpenPGP should be used to create
public and private keys for privacy and digital signature applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rivest-Shamir-Adelman is a public key infrastructure
algorithm composed of a public component and a private component
that is typically installed on a recognized Certificate Authority.
    \9\ Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm public keys
generate an encrypted signature to validate data.
    \10\ A Hash is cryptology technique used for digital signatures
in which a series of numbers that may represent, for example, a
password, an image, a document, or an executable file is used to
generate a cryptographic hash (i.e., a large number).
    \11\ SHA-2 is a set of cryptographic hash functions.
    \12\ PGP is a proprietary (i.e., an organization must pay to use
it) encryption program developed to enhance the confidentiality and
integrity of data.
    \13\ OpenPGP is an encryption standard defined by the Internet
Engineering Task Force enabling design and implementation free of
licensing fees. At present, the encryption method is generally
considered the most secure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Further, NAESB revised existing Standards 4.3.60, 4.3.84,
10.3.4, and 10.3.16 to specify Hyper-Text Transport Protocol Secure
(HTTPS),\14\ which is an encrypted version of Hyper-Text Transport
Protocol (HTTP),\15\ whenever a secure communication is required to
protect information in transit and support overall privacy needs.
Moreover, NAESB revised existing Standards 4.3.60 and 10.3.16 to
require multi-factor (e.g., two-factor) authentication on an individual
basis and state that secure websites should employ individual user
credentials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ HTTPS authentication encrypts username and password
combinations as part of a Uniform Resource Locator address. To
obtain an HTTPS connection, a web browser must contact a trusted,
commercial Certificate Authority, such as a NAESB Authorized
Certificate Authority, to obtain the web server's public key, and
follow other applicable HTTPS procedures.
    \15\ HTTP is the original communications protocol of the
internet which enables a web browser to depict text, pictures,
shapes, live data, and click targets on a web browser. However,
username and password combinations are not encrypted in HTTP basic
authentication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modifications in Response to Industry Request
    13. The following section describes standards development efforts
undertaken by NAESB in response to industry requests or through the
normal course of WGQ activities that resulted in modifications to the
Nomination Related Standards, QEDM Standards, and an effort that
impacted multiple sets of standards. NAESB made corresponding
revisions, where appropriate, to the related data sets and technical
implementation as part of the standards development effort.
a. Nomination Related Standards
    14. NAESB revised existing Standards 1.3.27, 1.4.1, and 1.4.2 to
add a new data element ``Capacity Block ID'' to allow a Service
Requester to determine which primary point rights of the contract their
segmented nomination \16\ is using and eliminate an existing manual
business process from the TSP to automate the business process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In order for a Service Requester to have control over its
segmented nomination(s), the Transportation Service Provider (TSP)
will require a ``Capacity Block ID'' to be submitted with each
nomination line item specifying a Transaction Type of ``Segmented.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanisms Related Standards
    15. NAESB developed two new standards, Standard 4.3.107 to
establish a standard data retention period for retrieval of
Operationally Available data from the Informational Postings website,
and Standard 4.3.108, to establish a standard data retention period for
retrieval of Notices for the subcategories of Critical, Non-Critical
and Planned Service Outage from the Informational Postings website.

c. Revisions Impacting Multiple Standards
    16. NAESB revised multiple standards \17\ and data sets \18\ to
remove references to the term ``gigacalories'' and add the term
``gigajoules,'' consistent with the standard quantity for nominations,
confirmations, and scheduling in Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NAESB WGQ Version 3.2 Standards 1.3.14, 1.3.15, 1.3.82, and
3.3.3.
    \18\ NAESB WGQ Version 3.2 Standards 0.4.1 through 0.4.3, 1.4.1,
1.4.3 through 1.4.6, 2.4.1, 2.4.6, 2.4.17, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 5.4.24
through 5.4.26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Other Material in NAESB's Report
    17. NAESB revised multiple data sets which impacted technical
implementation documentation only.
    18. Further, NAESB revised its optional model contracts and
corresponding Mexican and Canadian Addendums to reflect a standard
digital representation of natural gas trade events. NAESB states that
these revisions are intended to capitalize on smart contracts and
distributed ledger technologies.

B. Standards Proposed Not To Be Incorporated by Reference

    19. We propose to continue our past practice \19\ of not
incorporating by reference into our regulations any optional model
contracts because we do not require the use of these contracts and
therefore we do not need to include them in our regulations.\20\ In
addition, consistent with our findings in past proceedings, we are not
proposing to incorporate by reference the Wholesale Electric Quadrant/
WGQ eTariff Related Standards because the Commission adopted and posted
its standards and protocols for electronic tariff filings.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., Standards for Bus. Practices of Interstate Nat.
Gas Pipelines, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 83 FR 44521 (Aug. 31,
2018), 164 FERC ] 61,125, at P 16 (2018) (WGQ Version 3.1 NOPR).
    \20\ Id., Standards for Bus. Practices of Interstate Nat. Gas
Pipelines, Order. No. 587-V, 77 FR 43711 (Jul. 26, 2012), 140 FERC ]
61,036, at n.11 (2012).
    \21\ WGQ Version 3.1 NOPR, 164 FERC ] 61,125 at P 16; Elec.
Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, 73 FR 57515 (Oct. 3, 2008), 124 FERC
] 61,270 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Implementation Procedures

    20. We propose to continue the compliance filing requirements as
revised in Order No. 587-V.\22\ We propose that compliance filings made
in accordance with a final rule be made 120 days after issuance of a
final rule in this proceeding or on the first business day thereafter
if falling on a weekend or holiday, with an effective date 180 days
from the date compliance filings are due in this proceeding or the
first business day thereafter if falling on a weekend or holiday. As
the Commission found in Order No. 587-V, adoption of the revised
compliance filing requirements increases the transparency of the
interstate natural gas pipelines' incorporation by reference of the
NAESB WGQ Standards so that shippers and the Commission will know which
tariff provision(s) implements each standard as well as the status of
each standard.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Order No. 587-V, 140 FERC ] 61,036 at PP 36-39.
    \23\ Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline L.P., 141 FERC ] 61,167, at
P 36 (2012) (Order No. 587-V Compliance Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Consistent with our practice since Order No. 587-V, each
pipeline must designate a single tariff section under which every NAESB
WGQ Standard incorporated by reference by the Commission is listed.\24\
For each standard, the pipeline must specify in the tariff section or
tariff sheet(s) listing all the NAESB standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. P 36; WGQ Version 3.1 NOPR, 164 FERC ] 61,125 at P 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Whether the standard is incorporated by reference;
    (b) For those standards not incorporated by reference, the tariff
provision that complies with the standard; or
    (c) For those standards with which the pipeline does not comply, an
explanatory statement, including an indication of whether the pipeline
has been granted a waiver, extension of time, or other variance with
respect to compliance with the standard.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Shippers can use the Commission's electronic tariff system
to locate the tariff record containing the NAESB standards, which
will indicate the docket in which any waiver or extension of time
was granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, consistent with past practice, we will post on our
eLibrary website (under Docket No. RM96-1-042) a sample tariff format,
to provide filers an illustrative example to aid them in preparing
their compliance filings.
    22. Consistent with our policy since Order No. 587-V,\26\ we
propose that requests for waivers that do not meet the requirements set
forth in Order No. 587-V will not be granted. In particular, as we
explained in Order No. 587-V, waivers are unnecessary and will not be
granted when the standard applies only on condition the pipeline
performs a business function and the pipeline currently does not
perform that function.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Order No. 587-V, 140 FERC ] 61,036.
    \27\ Order No. 587-V Compliance Order, 141 FERC ] 61,167 at PP
4, 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. If the pipeline is requesting a continuation of an existing
waiver or extension of time, it must include a table in its transmittal
letter that identifies the standard for which the Commission granted a
waiver or extension of time, and the docket number or order citation to
the proceeding in which the Commission granted the waiver or extension
of time. The pipeline also must present an explanation for why such
waiver or extension of time should remain in force with regard to the
WGQ Version 3.2 Standards.
    24. This continues our practice of having pipelines include in
their tariffs a common location that identifies the way in which the
pipeline is incorporating all the NAESB WGQ Standards and the standards
with which it is required to comply.

III. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

    25. 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, we are proposing to
incorporate by reference voluntary consensus standards developed by the
WGQ.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    26. The Office of the Federal Register requires agencies proposing
to incorporate material by reference to discuss the ways that the
materials it incorporates by reference are reasonably available to
interested parties and how interested parties can obtain the
materials.\28\ The regulations also require agencies to summarize, in
the preamble of the final rule, the material that it incorporates by
reference. The standards we are proposing to incorporate by reference
consist of seven suites of NAESB WGQ Business Practice Standards that
address a variety of topics and are designed to streamline the
transactional processes for the wholesale natural gas industry by
promoting a more competitive and efficient market. These include the:
WGQ Additional Business Practice Standards; WGQ Nominations Related
Business Practice Standards; WGQ Flowing Gas Related Business Practice
Standards; WGQ Invoicing Related Business Practice Standards; Quadrant
Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Business Practice Standards;
Capacity Release Related Business Practice Standards; and Internet
Electronic Transport Related Business Practice

Standards. We summarize these standards below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 1 CFR 51.5 (2020). See Incorporation by Reference, 79 FR
66267 (Nov. 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. The WGQ Additional Business Practice Standards address six
areas: Creditworthiness; Storage Information; Gas/Electric Operational
Communications; Operational Capacity; Unsubscribed Capacity; and
Location Data Download.
     The Creditworthiness related standards describe
requirements for the exchange of information, notification, and
communication between parties during the creditworthiness evaluation
process.
     The Storage Information related standards define the
information to be provided to natural gas service requesters related to
storage activities and/or balances.
     The Gas/Electric Operational Communications related
standards define communication protocols intended to improve
coordination between the gas and electric industries in daily
operational communications between transportation service providers and
gas-fired power plants. The standards include requirements for
communicating anticipated power generation fuel for the upcoming day as
well as any operating problems that might hinder gas-fired power plants
from receiving contractual gas quantities.
     The Operational Capacity related standards define
requirements of the transportation service provider related to the
reporting and requesting of a transportation service provider's
operational capacity, total scheduled quantity, and operationally
available capacity.
     The Unsubscribed Capacity related standards define
requirements of the transportation service provider related to the
reporting and requesting of a transportation service provider's
available unsubscribed capacity.
     The Location Data Download related standards define
requirements for the use of codes assigned by the transportation
service provider for locations and common codes for parties
communicating electronically.
    28. The WGQ Nominations Related Business Practice Standards define
the process by which a natural gas service requester with a natural gas
transportation contract nominates (or requests) service from a pipeline
or a transportation service provider for the delivery of natural gas.
    29. The WGQ Flowing Gas Related Business Practice Standards define
the business processes related to the communication of entitlement
rights of flowing gas at a location, of the entitlement rights on a
contractual basis, of the management of imbalances, and of the
measurement and gas quality information of the actual flow of gas.
    30. The WGQ Invoicing Related Business Practice Standards define
the process for the communication of charges for services rendered
(Invoice), communication of details about funds rendered in payment for
services rendered (Payment Remittance), and communication of the
financial status of a customer's account (Statement of Account).
    31. The Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Business
Practice Standards define the framework for the electronic
dissemination and communication of information between parties in the
North American wholesale gas marketplace for Electronic Data
Interchange/EDM transfers, batch flat file/EDM transfers, informational
postings websites, Electronic Bulletin Boards/EDM, and interactive flat
file/EDM.
    32. The Capacity Release Related Business Practice Standards define
the business processes for communication of information related to the
selling of all or any portion of a transmission service requester's
contract rights.
    33. The Internet Electronic Transport Related Business Practice
Standards define the implementation of various technologies necessary
to communicate transactions and other electronic data using standard
protocols for electronic commerce over the internet between trading
partners.
    34. Our regulations provide that copies of the standards
incorporated by reference may be obtained from NAESB at https://www.naesb.org// or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies of the standards may be
inspected at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
https://www.ferc.gov/. However, at this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the
President's March 13, 2020 proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).
    35. NAESB is a private consensus standards developer that develops
voluntary wholesale and retail standards related to the energy
industry. The procedures used by NAESB make its standards reasonably
available to those affected by Commission regulations, which generally
is comprised of entities that have the means to acquire the information
they need to effectively participate in Commission proceedings.
Participants can join NAESB, for an annual membership cost of $8,000,
which entitles them to full participation in NAESB and enables them to
obtain these standards at no additional cost. Non-members may obtain
the Individual Standards Manual or Booklets for each of the seven
Manuals by email for $250 per manual, which in the case of these
standards would total $1,750. Non-members also may obtain the complete
set of Standards Manuals, Booklets, and Contracts on USB flash drive
for $2,000. NAESB also provides a free electronic read-only version of
the standards for a three-business day period or, in the case of a
regulatory comment period, through the end of the comment period. In
addition, NAESB considers requests for waivers of the charges on a
case-by-case basis depending on need.

V. Information Collection Statement

    36. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting, record keeping, and public
disclosure requirements (information collection) imposed by an
agency.\29\ Therefore, we are submitting our proposed information
collection to OMB for review in accordance with section 3507(d) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Upon approval of a collection of
information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not
be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information
unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control
number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 5 CFR 1320.11 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. We solicit comments on our 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.
    38. Public Reporting Burden: The Commission's burden estimates for
the proposals in this NOPR are for one-time implementation of the
information collection requirements of this NOPR (including tariff
filing, documentation of the process and procedures, and information
technology work).
    39. The collections of information related to this NOPR fall under
FERC-545 (Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-Formal)) \30\ and FERC-
549C (Standards for Business Practices of

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines).\31\ The following estimates of
reporting burden are related only to this NOPR and anticipate the costs
to pipelines for compliance with our proposals in this NOPR. The burden
estimates are primarily related to implementing these standards and
regulations and will not result in ongoing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ FERC-545 covers rate change filings made by natural gas
pipelines, including tariff changes.
    \31\ FERC-549C covers Standards for Business Practices of
Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.

                                                                     RM96-1-042 NOPR
                                         [Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Number of     Annual number                                              Total annual burden      Annual costs
                                        respondents     of responses    Total number   Average burden hr.  per    hours & total annual    per respondent
                                           \32\        per respondent   of responses           response                cost \33\               ($)
                                                 (1)              (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........  (5) / (1) = (6)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-545 (one-time).................             178                1             178  10 hrs.; $1,010........  1,780 hrs.; $179,780...           $1,010
FERC-549C (one-time)................             178                1             178  100 hrs.; $10,100......  17,800 hrs.; $1,797,800          $10,100
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................  ..............  ...............             356  .......................  19,580 hrs.; $1,977,580  ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The one-time burden (for both the FERC-545 and FERC-549C) will take
place in Year 1 and will be averaged over three years:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The number of respondents is the number of entities in
which a change in burden from the current standards to the proposed
exists, not the total number of entities from the current or
proposed standards that are applicable.
    \33\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) provided
in this section is based on the salary figures for May 2019 posted
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Utilities sector
(available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm) and
scaled to reflect benefits using the relative importance of employer
costs for employee compensation from June 2020 (available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). The hourly estimates for
salary plus benefits are:
    Computer and Information Systems Manager (Occupation Code: 11-
3021), $101.58.
    Computer and Information Analysts (Occupation Code: 15-
1120(1221), $87.42.
    Electrical Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2071), $70.19.
    Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000), $142.65.
    The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits), weighting all of
these skill sets evenly, is $100.50. We round it to $101/hour.

FERC-545: 1,780 hours / 3 = 593 hours/year over three years
FERC-549C: 17,800 hours / 3 = 5,933 hours/year over three years

    The number of responses is also averaged over three years (for both
the FERC-545 and FERC-549C):

FERC-545: 178 responses / 3 = 59 responses/year
FERC-549C: 178 responses / 3 = 59 responses/year

    The responses and burden for Years 1-3 will total respectively as
follows:

Year 1: 59 responses; 593 hours (FERC-545); 5,933 hours (FERC-549C)
Year 2: 59 responses; 593 hours (FERC-545); 5,933 hours (FERC-549C)
Year 3: 59 responses; 593 hours (FERC-545); 5,933 hours (FERC-549C)

    Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rates Change (Non-Formal);
FERC-549C, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines.
    Action: Proposed information collections.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0154 (FERC-545), 1902-0174 (FERC-549C).
    Respondents: Business or other for profit (e.g., Natural Gas
Pipelines, applicable to only a few small businesses).
    Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (related to
business procedures, capital/start-up).
    Necessity of Information: In response to the recommendations in the
Sandia report, the proposals in this NOPR would, if implemented,
upgrade current business practices and communication standards by
updating the Quadrant EDM Related Standards and IET Related Standards
to specifically: (1) Require the implementation of fixes or patches for
known vulnerabilities as soon as reasonably practicable in coordination
with other trading partners; (2) specify notification timelines to
provide notice to trading partners of any systems or software that have
not been updated and the potential impact of using the vulnerable
system; (3) include both specific and broad adoptions of system
security measures and specific notification and coordination during
outages with affected trading partners; (4) maintain a minimum
encryption strength of 128 bits, (5) specify that OpenPGP should be
used to create public and private keys for privacy and digital
signature applications; (6) specify HTTPS whenever secure communication
is required to protect information in transit and support overall
privacy needs; (7) use the largest feasible key length consistent with
implementation of current business processes; (8) state that secure
websites should employ individual user credentials; and (9) encourage
security assessments and coordination between customers, vendors, and
trading partners.
    40. Further, in response to industry requests or through the normal
course of WGQ activities, the proposals in this NOPR would, if
implemented, upgrade current business practices and communication
standards by specifically: (1) Updating the Nominations Related
Standards to allow a Service Requester to determine which rights of the
contract its segmentation nomination is using; (2) updating the
Quadrant EDM Related Standards to (i) define a NAESB standard time
frame for information to be retained on a pipeline's Informational
Postings website, (ii) allow for processing functions at the line item
level on Customer Activities websites and allow for the use of icons
and/or graphical control elements for navigation and/or processing
functions, and (iii) make minor revisions designed to add clarity,
update the minimum technical characteristics to account for changes in
technology since the previous version (Version 3.1) of the WGQ
standards, and update the minimum and suggested operating systems and
web browsers that entities should support; (3) updating multiple sets
of standards to remove references to the term ``gigacalories'' and add
the term ``gigajoules'' as the standard quantity for nominations,
confirmations, and scheduling in Mexico; and (4) revising the NAESB WGQ
data sets or other technical implementation documentation while not
resulting in modifications to the underlying business practice
standards. The package of standards also includes minor corrections.
The implementation of these data requirements will provide additional
transparency to Informational Postings websites and will improve
communication standards. The implementation of these standards and
regulations will promote the additional efficiency and reliability of
the natural gas industries' operations thereby helping the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under the NGA. In

addition, the Commission's Office of Enforcement will use the data for
general industry oversight.
    Internal Review: We have reviewed the requirements pertaining to
business practices of interstate natural gas pipelines and made a
preliminary determination that the proposed revisions are necessary to
establish a more efficient and integrated pipeline grid. These
requirements conform to our plan for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the natural gas pipeline
industries. We determined through our internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information requirements.
    41. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    42. 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, telephone: (202) 395-
0710; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].

VI. Environmental Analysis

    43. 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.\34\ The
actions that we propose to take 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 rules regarding sales, exchange, and
transportation of natural gas that require no construction of
facilities.\35\ Therefore, an environmental review is unnecessary and
has not been prepared as part of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Regulations Implementing the Nat'l Envt'l Pol'y Act, Order
No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \35\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), and 380.4(a)(27)
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    44. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \36\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission is not required to make such analysis if proposed
regulations would not have such an effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. Approximately 178 interstate natural gas pipelines, both large
and small, are potential respondents subject to the requirements
adopted by this rule. Most of the natural gas pipelines regulated by
the Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small
entity,\37\ which is currently defined for natural gas pipelines as a
company that, in combination with its affiliates, has total annual
receipts of $30 million or less.\38\ For the year 2019, only 11
companies not affiliated with larger companies had annual revenues in
combination with its affiliates of $30 million or less and therefore
could be considered a small entity under the RFA. This represents about
six percent of the total universe of potential respondents that may
have a significant burden imposed on them. We estimate that the one-
time implementation cost of the proposals in this NOPR is $1,977,580
(or $11,110 per entity, regardless of entity size).\39\ We do not
consider the estimated $11,110 impact per entity to be significant.
Moreover, these requirements are designed to benefit all customers,
including small businesses that must comply with them. Further, as
noted above, adoption of consensus standards helps ensure the
reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the standards draw
support from a broad spectrum of industry participants representing all
segments of the industry. Because of that representation and the fact
that industry conducts business under these standards, the Commission's
regulations should reflect those standards that have the widest
possible support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) citing section 3 of the Small Business
Act (SBA), 15 U.S.C. 623. Section 3 of the SBA defines a ``small
business concern'' as a business which is independently owned and
operated, and which is not dominant in its field of operation
(2019).
    \38\ 13 CFR 121.201 (Subsector 486-Pipeline Transportation;
North American Industry Classification System code 486210; Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas) (2020). ``Annual Receipts'' are total
income plus cost of goods sold.
    \39\ This number is derived by dividing the total cost figure by
the number of respondents. $1,977,580/178 = $11,110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA,\40\ the
regulations proposed herein should not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Comment Procedures

    47. We invite interested persons to submit comments on the matters
and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss.
Comments are due April 19, 2021. Comments must refer to Docket No.
RM96-1-042, and must include the commenter's name, the organization
they represent (if applicable), and their address in their comments.
    48. We encourage comments to be filed electronically via the
eFiling link on the Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov/. We
accept most standard word processing formats. Documents created
electronically using word processing software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
    49. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
may mail or hand-deliver an original of their comments. Mailed comments
should be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary
of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand-
delivered comments should be delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    50. 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.

IX. Document Availability

    51. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, we provide all interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet
through the Commission's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov/). At this
time, we have suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room due to the President's March 13, 2020 proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).
    52. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary 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.
    53. User assistance is available for eLibrary and our website
during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at
(202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

    Natural gas.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: February 18, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, we propose 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 284 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352;
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.

0
2. In Sec.  284.12, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  284.12   Standards for pipeline business operations and
communications.

    (a) Incorporation by reference of NAESB standards. (1) An
interstate pipeline that transports gas under subparts B or G of this
part must comply with the business practices and electronic
communications standards as promulgated by the North American Energy
Standards Board, as incorporated by reference in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (vii) of this section.
    (i) Additional Standards (Version 3.2, August 15, 2020);
    (ii) Nominations Related Standards (Version 3.2, August 15, 2020);
    (iii) Flowing Gas Related Standards (Version 3.2, August 15, 2020);
    (iv) Invoicing Related Standards (Version 3.2, August 15, 2020);
    (v) Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
(Version 3.2, August 15, 2020);
    (vi) Capacity Release Related Standards (Version 3.2, August 15,
2020); and
    (vii) internet Electronic Transport Related Standards (Version 3.2,
August 15, 2020).
    (2) This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies of these standards may be obtained from the North American
Energy Standards Board, 801 Travis Street, Suite 1675, Houston, TX
77002, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. NAESB's website is at https://www.naesb.org/. Copies may be inspected at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, https://www.ferc.gov/, or
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

[FR Doc. 2021-03797 Filed 3-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P