the regulations adopted.\220\ The Commission agrees and section
284.14(a)(4) of our regulations has been modified to require postings
by 10 p.m. central clock time the day prior to scheduled flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ Order No. 720 at P 97.
    \220\ AGA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 28;
National Grid Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Reporting by Customer Class
    136. In Order No. 720, the Commission required major non-interstate
pipelines to post information regarding scheduled flows on an
aggregated basis.\221\ Yates requests that the Commission expand this
requirement to include postings at each point by customer class and to
identify affiliate relationships.\222\ Yates argues that such postings
could enable market participants to detect unduly discriminatory
activities by major non-interstate pipelines.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ Order No. 720 at P 137.
    \222\ Yates Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 5-7.
    \223\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    137. The Commission will not require the posting of additional data
by customer class. As explained in Order No. 720, the Commission's
primary goal is to enhance the transparency of the interstate natural
gas market by requiring major non-interstate pipelines to post
information regarding scheduled natural gas volumes that may impact
interstate natural gas price formation. Requiring customer class-
specific data would not further this goal.
g. Conversion From Standard Cubic Feet (scf)
    138. The pipeline posting regulations adopted in Order No. 720
provided for measurements in Btu to determine whether major non-
interstate pipelines were subject to the rule and the receipt and
delivery points to be posted. In supplemental comments, NGSA suggests
that the Commission clarify that it is acceptable for major non-
interstate pipelines to utilize a standard conversion of 1,000 Btu per
scf to

determine whether a point is required to be posted.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ NGSA Supplemental Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    139. We grant the requested clarification. To the extent that a
pipeline cannot reasonably determine scheduled volumes utilizing Btu,
it may choose to utilize 1,000 Btu per scf as a conversion factor. This
conversion factor may be used to establish whether a pipeline is a
major non-interstate pipeline subject to the Commission's regulations
and also whether specific receipt and delivery points must be posted.
h. Clarification of Information To Be Posted
    140. California LDCs request clarification that available capacity
should be calculated, for purposes of postings by major non-interstate
pipelines, by subtracting Design Capacity from Scheduled Volume.\225\
The Commission agrees and clarifies that Available Capacity for
physical points is calculated by subtracting Design Capacity from
Scheduled Volume. To the extent that Available Capacity is not an
appropriate estimate of the additional volumes of natural gas that
could be scheduled at a point, pipelines may provide an explanation
accompanying their postings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ California LDCs Request for Rehearing and Clarification at
19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Exemptions

1. Pipelines Upstream of Processing Plants
    141. In Order No. 720, the Commission adopted an exemption to the
posting requirements contained in Sec.  284.14(a) for major non-
interstate pipelines that lie entirely upstream of a processing,
treatment, or dehydration plant.\226\ The Commission declared that a
pipeline may be upstream of a processing plant if it flows into another
line that flows into a processing plant.\227\ The Commission did not
provide a general exemption for gathering pipelines.\228\ The
Commission also declined to adopt an exemption for pipelines that lie
partially upstream and partially downstream of a processing, treatment,
or dehydration plant, instead holding that the increased threshold
mitigated compliance difficulties posed for such pipelines.\229\ The
Commission held that, in contrast to the ``primary function test,'' the
new regulation exemptions served as an easily-applied bright-line test
for determining whether a major non-interstate pipeline should post
information in compliance with this rule.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ Order No. 720 at P 113.
    \227\ Id.
    \228\ Id. at P 114.
    \229\ Id. at P 115.
    \230\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Requests for Rehearing and Clarification
    142. Anadarko and Encana request rehearing, and Shell requests
clarification, regarding whether the Commission should extend the
exemption to major non-interstate pipelines that are entirely upstream
of processing, treatment or dehydration plants but for the presence of
stub lines incidental to the operation of those plants.\231\ Anadarko
comments that if the only portion of a major non-interstate pipeline
system that is downstream of a processing, treatment, or dehydration
plant is a stub line incidental to that plant, solely used to connect
that plant to an interstate pipeline, then that major non-interstate
pipeline should not be required to comply with the reporting
requirements of section 284.14(a).\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ Anadarko Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 6-7;
Encana Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 5-7; Shell Request
for Rehearing and Clarification at 4-6.
    \232\ Anadarko Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    143. Anadarko cites Commission precedent, claiming that stub lines
are generally held to be incidental to the provision of gathering
services and, as such, are not subject to Commission jurisdiction under
section 1 of the NGA.\233\ Anadarko and Encana both state that the
relevant information for the gas flowing through the stub lines would
be captured at the receipt point on whatever pipeline that sub line
flows into; thus requiring posting under Order No. 720 would be
duplicative.\234\ Encana further urged the Commission to adopt such an
exemption to avoid unnecessary burdens on gathering and processing
companies in exercising its transparency authority.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ Id.
    \234\ Id. at 7; Encana Request for Rehearing and Clarification
at 6-7.
    \235\ Encana Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    144. Copano seeks clarification that the exemption for pipelines
lying entirely upstream of processing applies to a pipeline where,
under normal operating conditions, the entire gas stream flowing on the
pipeline is delivered into a downstream pipeline and is contractually
committed to be processed at a processing plant located on the
downstream pipeline.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ Copano Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    145. Enogex comments the Commission should exempt non-contiguous
systems located entirely upstream of processing plants.\237\ Enogex
states that Enogex Gas Gathering LLC operates several separate, non-
contiguous systems. Enogex also requests that the Commission apply the
modified primary function test to determine whether facilities are
exempt under the Final Rule rather than the bright-line test
promulgated therein.\238\ Enogex cites Commission precedent applying
the primary function test, claiming that the modified primary function
test is the standard the Commission has consistently applied to
determine whether a given facility performs a gathering or transmission
function.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ Enogex Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 9.
    \238\ Id. at 7-9.
    \239\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    146. The Commission is persuaded that a major non-interstate
pipeline with a stub line incidental to a processing plant and that
delivers all of its transported gas directly into a single pipeline
should not be required to comply with the posting requirements. The
Commission, therefore, grants rehearing on this issue. However, if a
major non-interstate pipeline's stub line delivers gas to multiple
pipelines or to end-users, then the major non-interstate pipeline will
not be exempt.
    147. The Commission agrees with Anadarko and Encana that major non-
interstate pipelines with stub lines that deliver gas entirely into a
single pipeline are in a substantially similar position regarding
impact on interstate natural gas price formation as pipelines that lie
entirely upstream of processing plants. As the Commission stated in
Order No. 720, natural gas that requires processing is not fungible
with interstate pipeline quality natural gas and, therefore, data
regarding the transportation of such natural gas has substantially less
transparency value.\240\ While natural gas that enters a stub line
following processing is of ``pipeline quality,'' transportation of that
gas directly to a single pipeline has no different price effect than if
natural gas flowed directly from a processing plant into an adjacent,
interconnected interstate pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ Order No. 720 at P 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    148. If a pipeline downstream of a processing plant makes
deliveries of natural gas to more than one pipeline or to end-users,
then such deliveries could have an effect on the supply of natural gas
to different portions of the interstate market and, therefore, on price

formation. To the extent that Anadarko and Encana request rehearing to
expand the exemption beyond stub line delivery directly to a single
pipeline, the Commission rejects the requests.
    149. Further, the Commission rejects Copano's request for
rehearing. Order No. 720 stated that, for purposes of this exemption,
``a pipeline may be upstream of a processing plant if it flows into
another line that flows into a processing plant.'' \241\ Copano
requests that we extend this analysis to contractual agreements to
process gas downstream from a major non-interstate pipeline. We
understand Copano's request to include situations where, although a
contractual commitment exists to deliver natural gas to a processing
plant, some or all of the delivered natural gas molecules may be
delivered into interstate or non-interstate pipelines without
processing.\242\ In this circumstance, at least some of the delivered
natural gas is fungible with pipeline quality natural gas and, for the
reasons we expressed in Order No. 720, the Commission will not extend
the exemption to major non-interstate pipelines that deliver pipeline
quality natural gas.\243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ Id. P 113.
    \242\ To the extent that Copano, or another major non-interstate
pipeline, delivers natural gas to another pipeline that must then
physically flow through a processing plant, then the exemption would
apply as the Commission stated in Order No. 720. Id.
    \243\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    150. Regarding Enogex's request for clarification of the exemption
regarding non-contiguous pipelines, the Commission directs Enogex and
other non-contiguous gathering pipelines to our clarifications
regarding companies operating non-contiguous pipelines, supra at P 71
et seq. To the extent that Enogex operates separate pipelines, it must
determine whether each pipeline is a major non-interstate pipeline
subject to the posting requirements.
    151. For the reasons expressed in Order No. 720, the Commission
denies Enogex's request for rehearing regarding use of the modified
primary function test to define the exemption for unprocessed gas
transportation. As Enogex correctly observes, the test is the method
utilized by the Commission ``to determine whether a given facility
performs a gathering or transmission function.'' \244\ The test was
created to assist the Commission to determine whether facilities are
transmission facilities subject to our traditional rates, terms, and
conditions regulation. NGA section 23 embodies a different purpose
(i.e., transparency of interstate natural gas price formation) with a
different jurisdictional reach (i.e., any market participant) and the
modified primary function test is therefore inapposite. Further,
application of the test would require case-by-case evaluation by each
potential major non-interstate pipeline to determine its status under
the rule. As Order No. 720 held, application of the test would be
unnecessarily burdensome for pipelines and the Commission.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ Enogex Request for Rehearing and Clarification at p. 7.
    \245\ Order No. 720 at P 114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Pipelines That Deliver Primarily to End Users
    152. Order No. 720 adopted an exemption to the posting requirements
in section 284.14 of the Commission's regulations for major non-
interstate pipelines that deliver more than 95 percent of their volumes
to retail customers as measured by average deliveries over the
preceding three calendar years.\246\ This exemption is codified at 18
CFR 284.14(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ Id. P 120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    153. The Commission explained that many sales to end-users have
substantial impacts on wholesale energy markets.\247\ In part, the
Commission relied upon its findings in Order No. 704-A to define
``retail'' sales of natural gas as bundled transactions through an LDC
at State-approved tariff rates.\248\ Order No. 720 concluded that,
where such transactions dominate a major non-interstate pipeline's
deliveries, the transparency importance of a pipeline's postings is
diminished. Balancing this lessened transparency benefit with the
burdens on LDCs to post data, the Commission decided to exempt LDCs
from posting if a pipeline's retail deliveries exceed 95 percent of the
total deliveries averaged over three calendar years. The Commission
also noted that, by increasing the threshold to become a major non-
interstate pipeline from 10 million MMBtu (as proposed in the NOPR) to
50 million MMBtu, it had already exempted a large number of small LDCs
from the posting regulations.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ Id. P 121 (citing Order No. 704-A at P 40-43).
    \248\ Id.
    \249\ Id. P 122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Requests for Rehearing and Clarification
    154. AGA, MidAmerican, National Grid, NICOR, Dow Pipeline, ONEOK
Gathering, and California LDCs argue on rehearing that the Commission
should extend the retail delivery exemption to major non-interstate
pipelines with the requisite deliveries to all end-users, not just
retail transactions.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ AGA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 10-16;
MidAmerican Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 3-5; National
Grid Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 4-8; NICOR Request
for Rehearing and Clarification at 2-5; Dow Pipeline Request for
Rehearing and Clarification at 3-5; ONEOK Gathering Request for
Rehearing and Clarification at 6-8; California LDCs Request for
Rehearing and Clarification at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    155. AGA, MidAmerican, and National Grid complain that Order No.
720 substantially departed from the NOPR in that the NOPR proposed to
exempt pipelines based upon deliveries to end-users rather than retail
deliveries.\251\ These companies argue that, as a result, affected
companies had no opportunity to comment on the scope of this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ AGA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 5-6;
MidAmerican Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 6-9; National
Grid Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 4-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    156. MidAmerican states that the only rationale provided by the
Commission explaining the exclusion of unbundled transactions was a
reference to Order No. 704.\252\ MidAmerican understands Order No. 704-
A as confirming the Commission's concern regarding interstate
transportation to end-users and not transportation from LDCs to end-
users.\253\ MidAmerican argues that data regarding deliveries to any
customers under State-approved transmission tariffs is not useful to
understand wholesale natural gas prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ MidAmerican Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 7.
    \253\ Id. at 7-10. MidAmerican suggests that the paragraphs
cited in Order No. 704-A relate to interstate transportation only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    157. Nicor argues that the Commission's analogy to Order No. 704-A
is misplaced. Nicor states that Order No. 704-A imposed an annual
reporting requirement for wholesale purchases and sales by market
participants while Order No. 720 imposes posting requirements for major
non-interstate pipelines.\254\ Nicor argues that all sales of natural
gas on its system are either being sold at retail or ``just
delivered.'' \255\ Nicor's argument stems from its conclusion that
``flows on a LDC's system would not meaningfully add to * * *
understanding of the supply and demand fundamentals that affect
wholesale natural gas prices.'' \256\ Even if the Commission does not
modify the exemption, Nicor argues that the regulatory text should be
clarified that retail transactions are only those bundled transactions
at a tariff rate.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ Nicor Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 3-4.
    \255\ Id.
    \256\ Id. at 4.
    \257\ Id. at 2-5.

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

    158. Targa claims that the Commission's determination in Order No.
720 to exempt only major non-interstate pipelines with greater than 95
percent of deliveries to retail customers is unsupported by the record
in this proceeding.\258\ Targa points to the fact that the only
comments received on this point were submitted by pipelines and
pipeline representatives counseling against this type of limitation to
the exclusion.\259\ Targa also claims that the Commission has not drawn
a legally cognizable distinction between pipelines that deliver more
than 95 percent of annual flows to end-users and pipelines that deliver
95 percent of flows to retails customers.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ Targa Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 10-14.
    \259\ Id. at 12.
    \260\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    159. Other petitioners seek to expand the exemption not only to
cover deliveries to all end-users, but to other transactions as well.
For example, Targa argues for further expansion of the exemption to
cover Hinshaw pipelines that supply natural gas to end-users and other
pipelines within a State. Targa states that there is no justification
for disparate treatment of such supply pipelines and LDCs for purposes
of the exemption.\261\ AGA agrees with Targa on this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \261\ Targa Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 10-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    160. National Grid and AGA argue that two other transactions should
also be part of the 95 percent of deliveries included in the exclusion:
volumes delivered to and from a liquefied natural gas storage facility
behind an LDC's city-gate and volumes that flow through delivery points
shared with other LDCs.\262\ National Grid states that these
transactions, like all deliveries to end-users, cannot contribute to an
understanding of wholesale price formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \262\ National Grid Request for Rehearing and Clarification at
9-10; AGA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 11-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    161. AGA additionally argues that deliveries from one LDC to
another should be deemed a delivery to end use customers.\263\
California LDCs request that the Commission require LDCs to post
information only at citygates and not within the LDC systems
themselves.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ AGA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 20-21.
    \264\ California LDCs Request for Rehearing and Clarification at
15-17; California LDCs Supplemental Comments at 6-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    162. The Commission grants rehearing to provide an exemption from
the posting requirements for all major non-interstate pipelines that
deliver more than 95 percent of their annual flows to end-users as
measured by average deliveries over the preceding three calendar years.
We agree with AGA, MidAmerican, National Grid, NICOR, Dow Pipeline,
ONEOK Gathering, and California LDCs that deliveries to end-users
generally have the same effect on deliveries to retail customers (a
subset of all end-users). As the Commission explained elsewhere in
Order No. 720 and above, transparency is enhanced through an
understanding of natural gas scheduled flows on non-interstate systems.
The structure of natural gas price sales and transportation
transactions by an LDC to end-users is irrelevant for purposes of
interstate price formation.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ Because we grant the rehearing request and revise our
regulations consistent with the proposal contained in the NOPR, we
need not address AGA's, MidAmerican's, and National Grid's arguments
regarding the notice provided regarding the Final Rule or Dow
Pipeline's alternative request for waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    163. The Commission also clarifies, as National Grid and AGA
suggest, that deliveries to on-system storage facilities (including
deliveries to on-system liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage) are
included within the exemption. Such deliveries have no effect on
interstate natural gas price formation. The Commission modifies section
284.14(b)(2) to include deliveries to on-system storage.
    164. We deny AGA's request to include deliveries from one LDC to
another in the end-use exemption and California LCDs' request to limit
posting by LDCs only to citygates. In such circumstances, LDCs are not
providing service to end-users, but are operating in essentially the
same fashion as traditional intrastate pipelines. To the extent that
National Grid's and AGA's requests regarding shared points relate to
deliveries and receipts from one LDC to another, those requests are
also denied.
    165. The Commission will also clarify that major non-interstate
pipelines other than LDCs can qualify for this exemption if they meet
the delivery threshold. However, we deny rehearing as requested by
Targa and AGA to broadly exempt Hinshaw pipelines that supply natural
gas to end-users and other pipelines within a State. Pipelines that
deliver substantial quantities of natural gas to other pipelines for
subsequent re-delivery to end-users are not similarly situated with
pipelines that deliver 95 percent of their volumes to end-users.
Receipts and deliveries at interconnections between pipelines provide
useful market information to understand changes in daily flows in
response to such things as regional prices; pipeline maintenance; and
pipeline disruptions, for example caused by a compressor outage.
    166. Lastly, the Commission notes that reference to NGA section
23(d)(2) is unavailing to most non-interstate pipelines seeking to
avoid posting of data.\266\ That section prohibits the Commission from
requiring compliance from ``natural gas producers, processors, or users
who have a de minimis market presence.'' Most non-interstate pipelines
are not producers, processors, or users of natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Storage Facilities
    167. In Order No. 720, the Commission adopted an exemption for
major non-interstate pipelines that function as stand-alone storage
providers.\267\ This exemption is codified in 18 CFR 284.14(b)(3). The
Commission reasoned that much of the flow data that could be obtained
from storage providers would be provided by interconnected interstate
or major non-interstate pipeline postings.\268\ Further, the Commission
clarified that flow data affecting interstate price formation, not
natural gas storage inventory, would enhance transparency and, thus,
posting of storage-specific data was unnecessary.\269\ Given these
facts, the Commission exempted major non-interstate pipeline storage
providers from the posting requirements of the rule as such postings
would be unduly burdensome.\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \267\ Order No. 720 at P 136.
    \268\ Id. P 136-37.
    \269\ Id. P 136.
    \270\ Id. P 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Requests for Rehearing and Clarification
    168. Enogex argues on rehearing that the exemption should be
extended to all major non-interstate pipelines that provide storage
service in addition to transportation service.\271\ Enogex states that
the Commission provided no explanation for excluding from the exemption
major non-interstate pipelines with storage and transportation
service.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ Enogex Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 10.
    \272\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    169. The Commission denies Enogex's request for rehearing. As
explained in Order No. 720 and supra at P 33 et

seq.,\273\ the posting of scheduled flow information on major non-
interstate pipelines will enhance interstate transparency and market
efficiency. In Order No. 720, the Commission exempted non-interstate
storage providers from the posting regulations because it determined
that scheduled flow, not natural gas storage inventory information,
furthered the rule's transparency goal. The Commission also noted that,
because major non-interstate pipelines that provide transportation
service would provide scheduled flow information to receipt and
delivery points connected to non-interstate storage providers, at least
some flow data into and out of storage providers would be publicly
available. Given these facts, the Commission determined that the
exemption was warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ Order No. 720 at P 39-56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Safe Harbor

    170. In response to the NOPR, certain commenters requested a safe
harbor for postings made by major non-interstate pipelines under the
promulgated regulations to excuse inadvertent posting errors by non-
interstate pipelines that make a good-faith effort to comply with the
posting requirements. The Commission declined to adopt a safe harbor,
differentiating between the posting requirements set forth in the order
and the very limited circumstances where the Commission has, in the
past, provided a safe harbor.\274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ Id. P 151-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Requests for Rehearing and Clarification
    171. Certain petitioners and commenters request rehearing of the
Commission's determination to not adopt a safe harbor provision based
on claimed uncertainties and ambiguities in the posting
requirements.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ California LDCs Request for Rehearing and Clarification at
17; Occidental Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 6-7; TPA
Supplemental Comments at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    172. TPA and Occidental seek clarification that the Commission will
not penalize unintentional mistakes by parties acting in good
faith.\276\ TPA comments that enforcement of our regulations regarding
major non-interstate pipelines within six months is a narrow timeframe
and that such pipelines will be hard pressed to design and implement
systems to post the required data.\277\ TPA also notes that errors are
likely to occur during the normal course of business.\278\ Occidental
comments that the potential for inadvertent posting errors is
particularly significant based on the fact that the posting
requirements apply to parties who historically have not been subject to
posting requirements and because many have not tracked the data that
the Commission is requiring them to report.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ TPA Supplemental Comments at 46; Occidental Supplemental
Comments at 6-7.
    \277\ TPA Supplemental Comments at 46.
    \278\ Id.
    \279\ Occidental Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    173. California LDCs do not take issue with the Commission's
determination to not adopt a safe harbor provision in perpetuity.
Instead, it recommends that the Commission adopt a limited safe harbor
for the first six months after the new regulations are implemented so
that non-interstate pipelines which make a good faith effort to comply
will not be penalized if they make inadvertent errors in
reporting.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ California LDCs Request for Rehearing and Clarification at
17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    174. Nothing in the supplemental comments persuades the Commission
to depart from the reasoning in Order No. 720 and the petitioners'
requests are denied. While the Commission has, on rare occasions,
adopted a safe harbor in other contexts, it does not believe one is
warranted here. The safe harbor adopted in the Policy Statement on
Price Indices was a direct extension of our policy goal to ``encourage
[industry participants] voluntarily to report energy transactions to
providers or price indices.'' \281\ The posting requirements set forth
in Order No. 720 and this order are mandatory posting requirements
adopted consistent with the directives of EPAct 2005, and are not the
voluntary reporting of price data to an index developer; therefore,
there is no policy need to provide an incentive for posting the
information required.\282\ As discussed in Order No. 720, other
mandatory requirements, such as the filing of FERC Form No. 2,
generally do not include a safe harbor.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets;
Policy Statement on Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, 104 FERC
] 61,121 (2003), clarified, 109 FERC ] 61,184 (2004).
    \282\ Order No. 720 at P 152.
    \283\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    175. The Commission further distinguishes the decision here not to
adopt a safe harbor from the temporary safe harbor adopted in Order No.
704-A. There, the Commission determined that, as FERC Form No. 552
would be completed by a large number of relatively unsophisticated
companies with little experience filing materials with the Commission,
a one-time safe harbor for initial filings of the form was
appropriate.\284\ Major non-interstate pipelines tend to be large,
sophisticated natural gas transportation businesses, often with
substantial experience complying with State public service commission
reporting requirements, and with dedicated regulatory staff available
to ensure compliance with our regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ Order No. 720 at P 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    176. Further, the Commission does not believe that the posting
requirements set forth in Order No. 720 were unclear or ambiguous;
however, to the extent that commenters believed they were unclear or
ambiguous, they have been provided an opportunity to request
clarification or rehearing, which many did. Additionally, major non-
interstate pipelines will have 150 days following publication of this
Order No. 720-A in the Federal Register before they must comply with
the posting regulations. The Commission expects that all major non-
interstate pipelines will have sufficient opportunity to create
internal operating procedures to ensure compliance.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ We remind major non-interstate pipelines that they may
contact our Compliance Help Desk for assistance regarding compliance
with our regulations, including questions regarding posting
scheduled flow data at receipt and delivery points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    177. The Commission will exercise discretion evaluating non-
compliance by major non-interstate pipelines with our posting
requirements. As the Commission has explained,\286\ Office of
Enforcement staff considers a number of factors to determine whether
investigations involving noncompliance are warranted and whether a
violation of the Commission's regulations warrants sanctions or other
remedies. In fact, Office of Enforcement staff ``frequently exercises
prosecutorial discretion to resolve minor infractions with voluntary
compliance measures rather than with penalties.'' \287\ The most recent
Office of Enforcement Annual Report is replete with examples of self-
reports of minor errors which were not pursued by the Office of
Enforcement.\288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \286\ Enforcement of Statutes, Regulations and Orders, Revised
Policy Statement on Enforcement, 123 FERC ] 61,156, at P 23-26 and P
31-32 (2008).
    \287\ Id. P 9.
    \288\ 2009 Report on Enforcement, Docket No. AD07-13-002 at 10-
14 (2009) (inadvertent errors in Electric Quarterly Report
submissions not sanctioned; inadvertent violation of price reporting
guidelines not sanctioned).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Interstate Pipeline Posting of No-Notice Service

    178. Order No. 720 required interstate natural gas pipelines to
post volumes of

no-notice service flows at each receipt and delivery point before 11:30
a.m. central clock time (the timely cycle under NAESB Nomination
Standard 1.32) three days after the day of gas flow.\289\ In the NOPR,
the Commission considered requiring interstate natural gas pipelines to
post actual flow information within twenty-four hours, but upon further
consideration in Order No. 720, the Commission required the posting of
only no-notice volumes within three days after the day of gas flow.
Order No. 720 found that this would achieve the goals of the Commission
with less of a burden than full posting of actual flows with a twenty-
four hour deadline.\290\ Because the Commission gave interstate
pipelines more time to post and because an interstate pipeline should
already have the no-notice information that we are requiring them to
post, the Commission found that this requirement was not unduly
burdensome.\291\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ Order No. 720 at P 160.
    \290\ Id. P 162, 166.
    \291\ Id. P 166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    179. The Commission explained that making information on no-notice
volumes available is important because it allows interstate natural gas
market participants and other market observers to better understand
price formation and historical patterns of flow.\292\ Without no-notice
information, the market cannot see large and unexpected increases in
gas demand and, therefore, cannot understand price formation both
during and after no-notice service is utilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \292\ Id. P 165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    180. The Commission noted that no-notice service information would
be of particular importance in understanding price behavior in the
northern tier of the country during extreme weather conditions.\293\
The Commission also noted that no-notice information could also prevent
manipulation and unduly discriminatory behavior because it would
increase transparency and therefore discourage such activities.\294\ In
addition, the Commission noted that no-notice postings would help
shippers understand why capacity that appears to be available is
actually not available during situations when no-notice service is
being used.\295\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ Id. P 163.
    \294\ Id. P 165.
    \295\ Id. P 164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Requests for Rehearing and Clarification
    181. Williston Basin seeks rehearing and INGAA requests
clarification and rehearing of the Commission's decision to require
interstate natural gas pipelines to post volumes of no-notice service
flows, both claiming that the requirement is arbitrary and
capricious.\296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ Williston Basin Request for Rehearing and Clarification at
1; INGAA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    182. Williston Basin comments that the requirement to post
information on no-notice service would not provide any useful market
information and would therefore have no impact on market
decisions.\297\ Williston Basin claims that the majority of no-notice
service relates to storage activity which is based on weather-driven
demand, and because most no-notice shippers inject in the summer months
at prevailing market rates and withdraw at a different time when prices
are different, the true market price of the gas on that particular day
is not reflected.\298\ Williston Basin states that the posting of
scheduled pipeline capacity and volume data provides the timeliest and
accurate information for assessing market fundamentals, and reporting
no-notice service is not necessary and would not provide any relevant
market information.\299\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \297\ Williston Basin Request for Rehearing and Clarification at
1-2.
    \298\ Id. at 2.
    \299\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    183. Williston Basin and INGAA both request that the Commission
adopt the same de minimis standard for no-notice interstate pipeline
postings as applied to major non-interstate pipeline postings.\300\
Williston Basin claims that it is discriminatory for the Commission to
not apply the same standard for interstate pipelines.\301\ INGAA states
that there are certain delivery points that are so small that they have
no measureable impact on market fundamentals and are not worth the cost
and administrative burden necessary to comply with the rule; therefore,
INGAA suggests that the Commission establish a de minimis rule that
would exempt delivery points with an average annual delivery rate of
less than 2,500 Mcf per day.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \300\ Id. at 3; INGAA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at
6-7.
    \301\ Williston Basin Request for Rehearing and Clarification at
3.
    \302\ INGAA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    184. On rehearing, INGAA argues that the no-notice reporting
requirement is not supported by a substantial record of evidence
because the Commission did not develop a record on the various ways
pipelines provide and measure no-notice service.\303\ INGAA asks the
Commission to consider that interstate pipelines have varying tariffs
and contracts for how they provide no-notice transportation services
for customers. INGAA requests that the Commission clarify that a
pipeline can satisfy the no-notice posting requirement by providing
data corresponding to how it provides no-notice transportation
service.\304\ For example, INGAA claims that in the majority of cases,
there is no way for a pipeline to determine a receipt point for its no-
notice service, therefore, it recommends that the Commission clarify
that interstate pipelines are not required to post no-notice volumes at
receipt points.\305\ In addition, INGAA asks the Commission to
recognize the role of aggregation in the administration of no-notice
service and asks the Commission to clarify that interstate pipelines
who report aggregate volume to customers and who use aggregate volume
to administer no-notice service contracts satisfy the no-notice posting
requirement by posting aggregate volumes.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ Id. at 1-2.
    \304\ Id. at 2.
    \305\ Id. at 2-3.
    \306\ Id. at 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    185. INGAA also asks that the Commission take into consideration
that interstate pipelines have varying metering and measurement
equipment, and INGAA requests that the Commission clarify that a
pipeline can satisfy the no-notice posting requirement by posting
estimated volumes when a pipeline estimates its no-notice volumes for
operational purposes (e.g., volumes are posted on a monthly or weekly
basis; meters are controlled by third parties).\307\ INGAA states that
it would not be economic for pipelines to install real-time
measurements equipment at each delivery point; therefore, INGAA asks
the Commission to clarify that it is appropriate for a pipeline to
report whatever information is available to the pipeline within the
three days allowed for posting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    186. The Commission denies Williston Basin's and INGAA's requests
for rehearing. The Commission believes that the posting of information
about no-notice service will enhance transparency and that this
requirement is not unduly burdensome. The Commission continues to
believe that no-notice service has an impact on market decisions and
price formation as described in Order No. 720. The Commission
recognizes that a large percentage of no-notice service relates to

weather-driven storage activity, and many no-notice shippers inject in
the summer months at prevailing market rates and withdraw at a
different time when prices are different; however, during such
occasions, when no-notice shippers withdraw gas, the absence of posting
of no-notice service means that the market cannot see these large
responses to gas demand at a time when the market is particularly
sensitive to variations in natural gas availability. Market
participants do not have access to information necessary to understand
price formation during such occasions, and for this very reason, the
Commission believes that the posting of no-notice service volumes is
necessary to achieve transparency.
    187. The Commission denies petitioners' requests for rehearing and
clarification that would establish a de minimis standard for posting of
information about no-notice service. The Commission is not persuaded to
adopt a de minimis standard for no-notice posting because it believes
that all interstate no-notice volumes are relevant to interstate
wholesale price formation.\308\ Even very small or transitory no-notice
volumes can have a substantial impact on natural gas prices during
times of system stress. Indeed, it is precisely at these times when no-
notice service is most utilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ Unlike non-interstate transportation that has an indirect
effect on interstate natural gas price formation, interstate
transportation has a direct effect on prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    188. The Commission's conclusion is reinforced by our authority,
exercised in Order No. 637 and elsewhere, to require interstate
pipelines to post substantial data regarding their operations.\309\
However, if a pipeline believes that its no-notice service is so
insubstantial so as to not influence price formation, the pipeline may
submit a detailed description of its no-notice operations and request a
waiver from our regulations. The Commission will consider such requests
on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas Transportation
Services and Regulation of Interstate Natural Gas Transportation
Services, Order No. 637, 65 FR 10156 (Feb. 25, 2000), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,091, at 31,332, clarified, Order No. 637-A, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,099, reh'g denied, Order No. 637-B, 92 FERC ] 61,062
(2000), aff'd in part and remanded in part sub nom. Interstate
Natural Gas Ass'n of America v. FERC, 285 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2002),
order on remand, 101 FERC ] 61,127 (2002), order on reh'g, 106 FERC
] 61,088 (2004), aff'd sub nom. American Gas Ass'n v. FERC, 428 F.3d
255 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    189. The Commission takes into consideration the fact that
interstate pipelines have varying tariffs and contracts for providing
no-notice service. The Commission recognizes that sometimes there is no
way for a pipeline to determine a receipt point for its no-notice
service; however, the Commission denies the request that interstate
pipelines not be required to post no-notice volumes at receipt points.
To the extent that the receipt point data is available for no-notice
service, pipelines must post that information. In the event that a
pipeline does not have receipt point data, then the pipeline may
indicate that the required data field is left intentionally blank. The
Commission also recognizes that some pipelines traditionally report
aggregate no-notice volumes to their customers. However, posting
aggregate volumes does not satisfy the no-notice posting requirement if
a pipeline has access to the records of the daily volumes. If the data
is available or could be made available, then the pipeline must post
the non-aggregated volume data, even if it prefers a different format
when dealing with customers. If a pipeline does not have access to non-
aggregated data, then it should post aggregated data.
    190. Finally, the Commission assures petitioners that it has taken
into consideration the fact that interstate pipelines have varying
metering and measurement equipment and clarifies that pipelines must
only post information that is available to them. Our transparency
regulations do not require the construction of new metering equipment.
Instead, an interstate pipeline should post whatever data it has
available within three days of the flow, noting any deficiencies in the
posting on its Web site. A pipeline should not post estimated volumes,
but rather actual flow. If, subsequent to an initial posting, more
complete no-notice service data becomes available, interstate pipelines
must update previously posted information.

H. Additional Exemptions

1. Natural Gas Companies With Service Area Determinations Under NGA
Section 7(f)
    191. In Order No. 720, the Commission stated that local
distribution companies with service area determinations under section
7(f) of the NGA were not categorically excluded from the posting
requirements as such companies that exceed the 50 million MMBtu annual
threshold may have a substantial impact on regional interstate natural
gas markets.\310\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ Order No. 720 at P 149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    192. WGL requests clarification and, in the alternative, rehearing
regarding the definition of ``major non-interstate pipeline'' as
applied to natural gas companies that have obtained service area
determinations under section 7(f) of the NGA.\311\ Our pipeline posting
requirements apply to ``major non-interstate pipelines.'' As provided
in 18 CFR 284.1(d), major non-interstate pipelines are comprised only
of those pipelines not subject to our NGA jurisdiction as ``natural gas
companies.'' \312\ WGL contends that a strict reading of the regulation
would exclude local distribution companies with service area
determinations under section 7(f) as such companies are ``natural gas
companies'' under the NGA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ WGL Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 3.
    \312\ 18 CFR 284.1(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    193. AGA requests clarification that LDCs that have service area
determinations under section 7(f) can qualify for the posting
exemptions contained in 18 CFR 284.14(b).
    194. The Commission grants WGL's request for rehearing and modifies
18 CFR 284.1(d) to provide that pipelines with a Commission-approved
service area determination may be major non-interstate pipelines if
they exceed the delivery threshold and otherwise do not qualify for an
exemption. The Commission agrees with WGL that there is no practical
difference between an LDC operating entirely within a single State and
LDCs operating in multiple states under a section 7(f) service area
determination. Consistent with WGL's and AGA's requests, the Commission
also clarifies that LDCs with service area determinations may be major
non-interstate pipelines for purposes of this rule.
2. Pipelines Owned or Operated by End Users
    195. Dow Chemical requests clarification, or in the alternative
rehearing, regarding application of the Commission's pipeline posting
regulations to pipelines that are owned and/or operated by an end-user
to transport natural gas to that end-user.\313\ Dow Chemical argues
that price transparency in the interstate market would not be enhanced
by requiring such pipelines to post scheduled flow information.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ Dow Chemical Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 3.
    \314\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    196. The Commission grants the requested clarification. Where a
pipeline delivers all of its transported natural gas directly to an
end-user that owns or operates the pipeline, the pipeline is an
extension of the end-user's plant or other natural gas consumption
facilities. To require

posting in such circumstances would be the functional equivalent of
requiring each large consumer of natural gas to post consumption
information on a daily basis. However, if a pipeline delivers natural
gas to entities other than the owner or operator of the pipeline, then
it is not exempted from the regulation. The Commission modifies section
284.14(b) of our regulations to incorporate this exemption.

III. Cost of Compliance

    197. In Order No. 720, the Commission estimated the compliance
costs of the pipeline posting regulations for both interstate and major
non-interstate pipelines.\315\ The order found that the average annual
cost of compliance for interstate pipelines and major non-interstate
pipelines was approximately $5,000 and $30,000, respectively.\316\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \315\ Order No. 720 at P 86.
    \316\ Id. P 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Requests for Rehearing and Clarification

    198. No petitioner objects to the Commission's estimate of
compliance costs for interstate pipelines. However, two petitioners
question the compliance costs for major non-interstate companies.
California LDCs claim that initial compliance costs for each LDC may
exceed $500,000 to calculate and record the design capacity of delivery
points as well as establishing procedures to capture new delivery
points for which posting is required. Based upon these costs, the
California LDCs conclude that the cost of compliance far outweighs the
benefits of the rule.\317\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \317\ California LDCs Request for Rehearing and Clarification at
12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    199. TPA argues that some TPA members will encounter increased
compliance costs to design and implement scheduling processes at points
where they currently do not schedule natural gas.\318\ Further, TPA
notes that non-interstate pipelines may schedule delivery of natural
gas to LDCs at sets of delivery points rather than individual delivery
points. TPA claims that the rule would require such pipelines to
establish mechanisms to account for scheduled flows to each point.\319\
Further, TPA claims that ``[s]ome TPA members * * * estimate
implementation and start-up costs in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars.'' \320\ While TPA acknowledges that Order No. 720 did not
adopt posting requirements for segments or actual flow, and thus,
reduced the potential cost of compliance, it argues that Order No. 720
ignores other costs estimated by TPA members.\321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \318\ TPA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at 41.
    \319\ Id.
    \320\ Id. at 42.
    \321\ Id. at 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Commission Determination

    200. The Commission disagrees with the California LDCs and TPA and
finds, as it did in Order No. 720, that the benefits of our
transparency regulations substantially outweigh the cost of compliance.
Enhanced transparency will result in a more efficient wholesale natural
gas market, more informed and better market choices made by market
participants, and, ultimately, lower natural gas prices for consumers.
    201. The Commission notes that Order No. 720's cost of compliance
estimates were based upon comments received in response to the NOPR and
the substantial reduction in compliance costs attendant in the
Commission's decision not to require posting of actual natural gas
flows or on pipeline segments. Further, Order No. 720 acknowledged that
both start-up and annual compliance costs would vary among
pipelines.\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ Order No. 720 at P 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    202. The Commission emphasizes that only scheduled natural gas
volumes are to be posted. The comments by TPA do not dissuade the
Commission from the determination that ``most if not all of the gas
control divisions of the affected companies currently have ready access
to the information captured'' by the rule.\323\ In large part, it
appears that TPA's concerns stem from fundamental misunderstandings of
the Final Rule. For example, TPA notes that some of its member
pipelines do not schedule flows at certain points, but that the rule
requires such pipelines to restructure their operations to adopt a
scheduling process.\324\ The regulations do not require pipelines to
modify their operations so as to schedule natural gas flows at point
where such flows have not heretofore been scheduled. Section 284.14(a)
of the Commission's regulations makes clear that major non-interstate
pipelines must post the amount of natural gas scheduled at each
relevant point ``whenever capacity is scheduled.'' \325\ Likewise, TPA
assumes that volumes scheduled to an aggregated receipt point for an
LDC customer must be broken out by physical receipt point. As clarified
in this order, the Commission's regulations will allow for posting of
aggregated scheduled flows to virtual or pooling points. The Commission
does not believe that major non-interstate pipelines will incur
significant expenses adopting new scheduling procedures as our
regulations do not require such changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ Id. P 56.
    \324\ TPA Request for Rehearing and Clarification at p. 41.
    \325\ 18 CFR 284.14(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    203. TPA and the California LDCs claim that the major non-
interstate pipelines that they represent may incur start-up costs of
hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with Order No. 720. Such
costs seem disproportionately high given that other major non-
interstate pipelines have not expressed similar concerns on rehearing.
The Commission also finds such claims doubtful given the sophistication
of these pipelines, their experience with electronic data capture,
their familiarity with the receipt and delivery points on their
systems, and, for at least some of these pipelines, their substantial
experience with posting flow data on electronic databases. For these
reasons and given the generality of the compliance cost claims by TPA
and the California LDCs, the Commission will not modify the conclusion
that compliance costs for the rule exceed the substantial value of
enhanced market transparency.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    204. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
it to approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (information
collection) requirements imposed by an agency.\326\ In the Final Rule
and in this Order on Rehearing and Clarification, the Commission
addresses two requirements for the posting or collection of
information, one for interstate and one for major non-interstate
pipelines.\327\ The Commission adopts no changes to its regulations
regarding posting requirements for interstate pipelines. However, the
Commission has submitted notification of the modified information
collection requirements for major non-interstate pipelines to OMB for
its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\328\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \326\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
    \327\ The OMB regulations cover both the collection of
information and the posting of information. 5 CFR 1320.3(c). Thus,
the proposal to post information would create an information
collection burden.
    \328\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    205. The requirement for major non-interstate pipelines to post
scheduled volume information would impose an information collection
burden on major non-interstate pipelines. Certain non-interstate
pipelines have asserted on rehearing that costs would be high if

additional equipment were needed to meet quick posting deadlines.
However, the Commission does not believe that installation of
additional equipment will be necessary to meet major non-interstate
pipelines' obligations. The burden that is imposed by these regulations
is largely for the collection and posting of this information in the
required format.\329\ Elsewhere in this preamble, the Commission has
further addressed requests for rehearing and clarification regarding
the burden of the requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \329\ See 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2) (``The time, effort, and financial
resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that
would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their
activities (e.g., in compiling and maintaining business records)
will be excluded from the ``burden'' if the agency demonstrates that
the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to
comply are usual and customary.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    206. OMB regulations require OMB to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission
submitted notification of this rule to OMB.

Public Reporting Burden:

    The start-up and annual burden estimates for complying with this
rule are as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Number of daily    Estimated annual     Total annual    Estimated  start-
                     Data collection                           Number of         postings per     burden hours per    hours for all      up burden per
                                                              respondents         respondent         respondent        respondents         respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Part 284
FERC-551:
    Major Non-Interstate Pipeline Postings...............                70                  2                365             25,550                 40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annual hours for collection (including recordkeeping) for
all respondents is estimated to be 25,550 hours.
    Information Posting Costs: The average annualized cost for each
respondent is projected to be the following (savings in parenthesis):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Annualized
                                                          capital/startup                       Annualized costs
                                                          costs  (10 year      Annual costs          total
                                                           amortization)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-551:
    Major Non-Interstate Pipeline Postings.............              $142            $30,000            $30,142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-551.
    Action: Proposed Information Posting and Information Filing.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0243.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit.
    Frequency of Responses: Daily posting requirements.
    Necessity of the Information: The daily posting of additional
information by interstate and major non-interstate pipelines is
necessary to provide information regarding the price and availability
of natural gas to market participants, State commissions, the
Commission and the public. The posting would contribute to market
transparency by aiding the understanding of the volumetric/availability
drivers behind price movements; it would provide a better picture of
disruptions in natural gas flows in the case of disturbances to the
pipeline system; and it would allow the monitoring of potentially
manipulative or unduly discriminatory activity.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    207. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \330\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA requires consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on such entities. A natural gas
pipeline is considered a small entity for the purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act if its average annual receipts are less than
$7.0 million.\331\ In Order No. 720, the Commission stated its belief
that none of the pipelines required to comply with requirements in the
rule had receipts of less than $7.0 million annually and therefore, the
daily posting proposal will not impact small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \330\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \331\ See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small
Business Size Standards, http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/
documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf (effective July 31,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    208. In keeping with the provisions of the RFA, the Commission
established a delivery threshold of 50 million MMBtu which would
eliminate compliance burdens for smaller non-interstate pipelines by
taking into account the resources that are available to small entities
in order to comply with the posting requirements. In response to the
comments on rehearing and supplemental comments, the Commission is also
exercising an additional regulatory alternative by exempting some major
non-interstate pipelines with certain operational characteristics from
the posting requirements and otherwise modifying the requirements to
lessen the burden on posting pipelines. For example, the Commission is
directing major non-interstate pipelines to review points with no known
design capacity annually, rather on a rolling basis, to determine
whether information for the point must be posted. Further, major non-
interstate pipelines are exempt from posting scheduled natural gas
volumes at points that have scheduled flows less than 5,000 MMBtu per
day on each day within the prior three calendar years.
    209. Additional exemptions include: Major non-interstate pipeline
that have stub lines incidental to a processing plant and that delivers
all of its transported gas directly into a single pipeline; major non-
interstate pipelines that deliver more than 95 percent of their annual
flows to end-users as measured by average deliveries over the preceding
three calendar years; major non-interstate pipelines that deliver to
on-system storage facilities (including deliveries to on-system LNG
storage);

pipelines that transport all of their natural gas directly to an end-
user that owns or operates the pipeline.

VI. Document Availability

    210. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission will provide all interested
persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://
www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    211. From FERC'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.
    212. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VII. Effective Date and Compliance Deadlines

    213. Order No. 720 set compliance deadlines for interstate and
major non-interstate pipelines to comply with the transparency posting
requirements.\332\ The Commission ordered interstate pipelines subject
to the new posting requirements to comply with the promulgated
regulations no later than 60 days following publication in the Federal
Register; major non-interstate pipelines were given 150 days after such
publication to comply.\333\ On January 15, 2009, in response to motions
from major non-interstate pipelines for an extension of time to comply
with Order No. 720, the Commission extended compliance for major non-
interstate pipelines until 150 days following the publication of an
order addressing the pending requests for rehearing.\334\ The
Commission did not modify the deadline by which interstate pipelines
must comply with the requirements of Order No. 720.\335\ The compliance
deadlines were chosen to allow the applicable entities sufficient time
to update their information technology systems and establish an
Internet Web site for the postings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \332\ Order No. 720 at P 167-68.
    \333\ Id.
    \334\ Pipeline Posting Requirements Under section 23 of the
Natural Gas Act, 126 FERC ] 61,047, at P 2, 4 (2009).
    \335\ Id. at P 4. Thus, interstate pipelines were required to
begin posting no-notice flow no later than January 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Requests for Rehearing and Clarification

    214. No parties submitted requests for rehearing or comments
regarding the deadline for compliance with the Final Rule.

B. Commission Determination

    215. The Commission's regulations regarding the posting of data
related to no-notice service by interstate pipelines are not modified
in this order. Interstate pipelines should continue compliance with our
regulations.
    216. The Commission's revised regulations regarding postings by
major non-interstate pipelines will become effective 30 days following
publication in the Federal Register. The Commission continues to
believe, that, for major non-interstate pipelines, a compliance
deadline of 150 days following the issuance of this order on rehearing
allows sufficient time for pipelines to update their information
technology systems and establish an Internet Web site for the required
postings. This time frame for compliance will allow major non-
interstate pipelines to complete the current heating season without the
need to implement new posting procedures while ensuring that new
postings are available prior to the next heating season. Therefore,
major non-interstate pipelines must comply within 150 days of the
issuance of this order on rehearing.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

    Continental shelf; Incorporation by reference; Natural gas;
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Norris voting present.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission amends 18 CFR Chapter I 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. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352;
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.

0
2. In Sec.  284.1, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  284.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (d) Major non-interstate pipeline means a pipeline that fits the
following criteria:
    (1) It is not a ``natural gas company'' under section 1 of the
Natural Gas Act, or is a ``natural gas company'' and has obtained a
service area determination under section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act
from the Commission;
    (2) It delivers annually more than fifty (50) million MMBtu
(million British thermal units) of natural gas measured in average
deliveries for the previous three calendar years; or, if the pipeline
has been operational for less than three years, its design capacity
permits deliveries of more than fifty (50) million MMBtu of natural gas
annually.

0
3. Section 284.14 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  284.14  Posting requirements of major non-interstate pipelines.

    (a) Daily posting requirement. A major non-interstate pipeline must
post on a daily basis on a publicly-accessible Internet Web site and in
downloadable file format equal and timely access to information
regarding receipt or delivery points, including non-physical scheduling
points.
    (1) A major non-interstate pipeline must post data for each receipt
or delivery point, or for any point that operates as both a delivery
and receipt point for the major non-interstate pipeline, to which
natural gas transportation is scheduled:
    (i) With a physically metered design capacity equal to or greater
than 15,000 MMBtu (million British thermal units)/day; or
    (ii) If a physically metered design capacity is not known or does
not exist for such a point, with a maximum volume scheduled to such a
point equal to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu on any day within the prior
three calendar years.
    (2) Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection 284.14(a)(1), a
receipt point is not subject to the posting requirements of this
section if the

maximum scheduled volume at the receipt point was less than 5,000 MMBtu
on every day within the prior three calendar years. If a point has
operated as both a receipt and delivery point any time within the prior
three calendar years, subsection 284.14(a)(2) shall not apply to that
point.
    (3) A major non-interstate pipeline that must post data for a
receipt or delivery point shall do so within 45 days of the date that
the point becomes eligible for posting.
    (4) For each delivery or receipt point that must be posted, a major
non-interstate pipeline must provide the following information by 10:00
p.m. central clock time the day prior to scheduled natural gas flow:
Transportation Service Provider Name, Posting Date, Posting Time,
Nomination Cycle, Location Name, Additional Location Information if
Needed to Distinguish Between Points, Location Purpose Description
(Receipt, Delivery, Bilateral, or Non-physical Scheduling Point),
Posted Capacity (physically metered design capacity or maximum flow
within the last three years), Method of Determining Posted Capacity
(Capacity or Maximum Volume), Scheduled Volume, Available Capacity
(Calculated as Posted Capacity minus Scheduled Capacity), and
Measurement Unit (Dth, MMBtu, or MCf). For receipt or delivery points
with bi-directional scheduled flows, the Scheduled Volume for scheduled
flow in each direction must be posted. The information in this
subsection must remain posted for at least a period of one year.
    (b) Exemptions to daily posting requirement. The following
categories of major non-interstate pipelines are exempt from the
posting requirement of Sec.  284.14(a):
    (1) Those that are located upstream of a processing, treatment or
dehydration plant;
    (2) Those that deliver more than ninety-five percent (95%) of the
natural gas volumes they flow directly to end-users or on-system
storage as measured in average deliveries for the previous three
calendar years;
    (3) Storage providers;
    (4) Those that deliver the entirety of their transported natural
gas directly to an end-user that owns or operates the major non-
interstate pipeline.

    Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.

            Appendix A: List of Petitioners and Abbreviations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Petitioners                         Abbreviations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. American Gas Association......  AGA.
2. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation  Anadarko.
3. Atmos Pipeline-Texas..........  Atmos.
4. Bear Paw Energy LLC and ONEOK   Bear Paw/ONEOK.
 Field Services Company, LLC.
5. Copano Energy LLC.............  Copano Energy.
6. Dow Chemical Company..........  Dow Chemical.
7. Dow Pipeline Company and Dow    Dow Pipeline.
 Intrastate Gas Company.
8. Ecana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.....  Encana.
9. Enogex LLC and Enogex Gas       Enogex.
 Gathering LLC.
10. Gas Processors Association...  Gas Processors.
11. Interstate Natural Gas         INGAA.
 Association of America.
12. Louisiana Office of            LOC.
 Conservation.
13. MidAmerican Energy Company...  MidAmerican.
14. National Grid Gas Delivery     National Grid.
 Companies.
15. Nicor Gas Company............  Nicor.
16. ONEOK Gas Transportation, LLC  ONEOK Gathering.
 and ONEOK Gas Transmission, LLC.
17. Pacific Gas & Electric         PG&E.
 Company.
18. Pacific Gas & Electric         California LDCs.
 Company, Southern California Gas
 Company, and San Diego Gas &
 Electric Company.
19. Railroad Commission of Texas.  Railroad Commission of Texas.
20. Shell Offshore, Inc..........  Shell.
21. Southwest Gas Corporation....  Southwest Gas.
22. Targa Louisiana Intrastate     Targa.
 LLC.
23. Texas Pipeline Association...  TPA.
24. Washington Gas Light Company.  WGL.
25. Williston Basin Interstate     Williston Basin.
 Pipeline Company.
26. Yates Petroleum Corporation    Yates.
 and Agave Energy Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Appendix B: List of Supplemental Commenters and Abbreviations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Supplemental Commenters                   Abbreviations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. American Gas Association......  AGA.
2. Atmos Pipeline--Texas.........  APT.
3. Kinder Morgan Texas Intrastate  KM.
 Pipeline Group.
4. Occidental Permian Ltd........  Occidental.
5. ONEKOK Gas Transmission, LLC    ONEOK Gathering.
 and ONEOK Westex Transmission,
 LLC.
6. Natural Gas Supply Association  NGSA.
7. Pacific Gas & Electric          California LDCs.
 Company, Southern California
 Gas, and San Diego Gas &
 Electric Company.
8. Texas Pipeline Association....  TPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-1546 Filed 1-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 2006 SUBJECT: Completion of Tolerance Reassessment For Inorganic Bromides Resulting from Soil Treatment FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

TO: James Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs The purpose of this memorandum is to document my decision on the tolerance reassessment of 12 specific tolerances in 40 CFR 180.199 for residues of inorganic bromides resulting from soil treatment with combinations of chloropicrin, methyl bromide, and propargyl bromide. I consider the 12 tolerances to be reassessed as of the date of this memorandum.

The Health Effects Division ( HED) provided SRRD with a list of specific tolerances that are candidates for tolerance revocation. HED's February 8, 2006 memorandum supports a determination that methyl bromide pre plant soil applications are non food uses and that tolerances for inorganic residues on raw agricultural commodities are no longer needed.

SRRD considers these 12 tolerances reassessed ( see Table 1). At a future date, SRRD will follow up with a proposal and subsequent final rule in the Federal Register to revoke these tolerances.

TABLE 1: TOLERANCES THAT SHOULD BE REVOKED CFR Cite Document Reference No. Tolerances to be Revoked 180.199 D304618 T. Goodlow 2/ 08/ 2006 12 General: ( a) broccoli, cauliflower, eggplant, muskmelon, pepper, pineapple, strawberry, and tomato Regional: ( b) asparagus, lettuce, and onion, dry bulb Regional ( c) ginger, roots Attachment: Methyl Bromide: Tolerance Revocation of Inorganic Bromides. D304618. February 8, 2006 cc: Steven Weiss, Joseph Nevola, Don Sadowsky


E Mail Janet McDonald 06/ 08/ 2004 02: 32 PM To: Arthur_ G._ Fraas@ omb. eop. gov cc: Subject: Re: appendix S crosswalk Also, breaking news from R4 is that SC will also need to issue permits meeting the conditions in appendix S.

Arthur_ G._ Fraas@ omb. eop. gov 06/ 08/ 2004 02: 17 PM To: Janet McDonald/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Re: appendix S crosswalk Janet  what are the counties in CA and AZ? thx art