[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 14 (Monday, January 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6950]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0002]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49
U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on
January 5, 2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue
or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2021-0002.

Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Tommy A. Phillips, Senior
Director--C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309

    Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue a traffic
control system (TCS) on the NA West End line, milepost (MP) 801,
Birmingham, Alabama, to MP 840 and MP NA 95, control point (CP) Parish,
to MP NA 5, CP Lee, on the Alabama Division. This includes CPs at
Brookside, Blossburg, Locust, Bryan, Standard, Parish, Gamble, Burton,
Nauvoo, Ash, Lynn, Bankhead, Yankee, Delmar, Haleyville, Philco,
Franklin, Hyde, and Littleville, and 38 automatic signals. The main
track from MP NA 801 to MP 840 and MP NA5 to MP NA95 will be converted
to NS Rule 171 operation. All signaled sidings within the application
limits will be made non-controlled, other than main track.
    NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that
operations no longer require TCS.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 11, 2021 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-01424 Filed 1-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


AGENDA

Pfizer Animal Health

Product-Specific Mitigation Meeting

Tuesday, June 1, 2010, at 3:00 pm

Room TBD

I.	Introductions

II.	Pfizer Presentation

III.	Agency Response

IV.	Petting Study Protocol Discussion

V.  	Other Issues

VI.	Questions and Answers

VII.	Next Steps


[Federal Register: January 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 4554-4557]
[DOCID:fr28ja10-49]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9107-3, EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0238]

Modification to 2008 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With
Construction Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 today are modifying
the 2008 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
general permits for stormwater discharges associated with construction
activity in order to extend by one year the expiration date of the
permit. Hereinafter, these NPDES general permits will be referred to as
``permit'' or ``2008 construction general permit'' or ``2008 CGP.'' The
2008 CGP was originally issued for a period of two (2) years. Today,
EPA is modifying the CGP in order to extend the 2 year term of the 2008
CGP by one year so that it expires on June 30, 2011, instead of June
30, 2010, resulting in a permit that will be in effect for a total
period of three (3) years. By Federal law, no NPDES permit may be
issued for a period that exceeds five (5) years.

DATES: EPA is modifying its 2008 Construction General Permit by
extending the permit by one year. This permit modification is effective
on January 20, 2010. The 2008 Construction General Permit will now
expire on midnight June 30, 2011, instead of June 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Schaner, Water Permits Division,
Office of Wastewater Management (Mail Code: 4203M), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., EPA East, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    If a discharger chooses to apply for coverage under the 2008 CGP,
the permit provides specific requirements for preventing contamination
of stormwater discharges from the following construction activities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         North American
                                                            Industry
         Category              Examples of affected      Classification
                                     entities            System (NAICS)
                                                              code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................   Construction site operators disturbing 1 or
                             more acres of land, or less than 1 acre but
                             part of a larger common plan of development
                                or sale if the larger common plan will
                                ultimately disturb 1 acre or more, and
                                 performing the following activities:
                            Building, Developing and                 233
                             General Contracting.
                            Heavy Construction........               234
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but
provides it as a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists the types of activities that
EPA is now aware of that could potentially be affected by this action.
Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected.
To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you
should carefully examine the definition of ``construction activity''
and ``small construction activity'' in existing EPA regulations at 40
CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 122.26(b)(15), respectively. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed for technical information in the
preceding ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
    Eligibility for coverage under the 2008 CGP is limited to operators
of ``new projects'' or ``unpermitted ongoing projects.'' A ``new
project'' is one that commences after the effective date of the 2008
CGP. An ``unpermitted ongoing project'' is one that commenced prior to
the effective date of the 2008 CGP, yet never received authorization to
discharge under the 2003 CGP or any other NPDES permit covering its
construction-related stormwater discharges. This permit is effective
only in those areas where EPA is the permitting authority. A list of
eligible areas is included in Appendix B of the 2008 CGP.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0238. The official public
docket is the collection of materials that is available for public
viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Although all documents in the docket are listed in an index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. Electronic versions of the
final permit and fact sheet are available at EPA's stormwater Web site
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search'', then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility identified in Section I.B.1.

C. Response to Public Comments

    EPA received 4 comments on the proposal to extend the 2008 CGP. All
commenters were supportive of EPA's proposed extension. Three of the
commenters recommended that EPA modify the 2008 CGP to extend the
expiration date of the permit for 3 years, so that the permit would
expire on June 30, 2013, instead of the proposed expiration date of
June 30, 2011, thus making it a 5-year permit. EPA declined to adopt
the commenter's recommendation. It is important to minimize the delay
in issuing a new CGP that incorporates the new federal requirements for
the discharges from construction and development sites, which were
published in the Federal Register December 1, 2009. 74 FR 62996. For a
copy of the ``Construction and Development Effluent Limitations
Guidelines'' (or ``C&D rule''), and other related information, go to
http://www.epa.gov/guide/construction/.
    The 2008 CGP was issued for a shorter term than the statutorily
allowed 5 years so that the newly promulgated C&D rule requirements
could be incorporated into the permit as soon as practicable. Many
States will be looking at the Agency's next CGP to gain insight into
how to implement the C&D ELG requirements into permits. The C&D ELG
established numeric effluent limitations and monitoring requirements,
both of which may be new to the large number of construction sites
throughout the country. EPA would like to issue the next CGP
implementing these requirements as soon as possible. By promulgating a
final CGP that incorporates the C&D ELG by June 30, 2011 EPA will
assist State agencies that must reissue their permits in the next few
years and incorporate the C&D ELG into their permits.
    One commenter further recommended that EPA make modifications to
the 2008 CGP in addition to the one-year extension of the permit. This
commenter specifically recommended that EPA take the opportunity to
streamline the CGP and the process for authorizing dischargers, such as
through a simplified option for single lot construction projects, a
simplified qualified local program option, and a certification of no
pollutant discharge added to the permit. EPA is aware of the issues
that the commenter has raised; however, EPA is not inclined to make
further modifications to the 2008 CGP at this time beyond the one-year
extension. The expiration date of the 2008 CGP is the only issue for
which EPA proposed a modification; EPA believes the issues raised by
the commenter, which will require a significant amount of time to
consider for incorporation into the permit, are best contemplated for
the new permit to be issued prior to June 30, 2011.

D. Who Are The EPA Regional Contacts for This Permit?

For EPA Region 1, contact Jessica Hing at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For EPA Region 2, contact Stephen Venezia at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or for Puerto Rico, contact Sergio
Bosques at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For EPA Region 3, contact Garrison Miller at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For EPA Region 5, contact Brian Bell at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For EPA Region 6, contact Brent Larsen at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For EPA Region 7, contact Mark Matthews at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For EPA Region 8, contact Greg Davis at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For EPA Region 10, contact Dick Hetherington at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Background of Permit

A. Statutory and Regulatory History

    The Clean Water Act (``CWA'') establishes a comprehensive program
``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters.'' 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The CWA also
includes the objective of attaining ``water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife.'' 33
U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)). To achieve these goals, the CWA requires EPA to
control discharges through the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits, which may be issued for fixed
terms that may not exceed five (5) years. 33 U.S.C. 1342(b)(1)(B).
    Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) added section
402(p) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which directed EPA to develop a
phased approach to regulate stormwater discharges under the NPDES
program. EPA published a final regulation in the Federal Register on
the first phase of this program on November 16, 1990, establishing
permit application requirements for ``storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity.'' See 55 FR 47990. EPA defined the term
``storm water discharge associated with industrial activity'' in a
comprehensive manner to cover a wide variety of facilities.
Construction activities, including activities that are part of a larger
common plan of development or sale, that ultimately disturb at least
five acres of land and have point source discharges to waters of the
U.S. were included in the definition of ``industrial activity''
pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x). Phase II of the stormwater program
was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999, and required
NPDES permits for discharges from construction sites disturbing at
least one acre, but less than five acres, including sites that are part
of a larger common plan of development or sale that will ultimately
disturb at least one acre but less than five acres, pursuant to 40 CFR
122.26(b)(15)(i). See 64 FR 68722. EPA is proposing to extend the
expiration date of the 2008 CGP under the statutory and regulatory
authority cited above.
    NPDES permits issued for construction stormwater discharges are
required under Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA to include conditions for
meeting technology-based effluent limits established under Section 301
and, where applicable, Section 306. Once an

effluent limitations guideline or new source performance standard is
promulgated in accordance with these sections, NPDES permits are
required to incorporate limits based on such limitations and standards.
See 40 CFR 122.44(a)(1). Prior to the promulgation of national effluent
limitations and standards, permitting authorities incorporate
technology-based effluent limitations on a best professional judgment
basis. CWA section 402(a)(1)(B); 40 CFR 125.3(a)(2)(ii)(B).

B. Summary of 2008 CGP

    EPA announced the issuance of the 2008 CGP on July 14, 2008. See 73
FR 40338. Construction operators choosing to be covered by the 2008 CGP
must certify in their notice of intent (NOI) that they meet the
requisite eligibility requirements, described in Part 1.3 of the
permit. If eligible, operators are authorized to discharge under this
permit in accordance with Part 2. Permittees must install and implement
control measures to meet the effluent limits applicable to all
dischargers in Part 3, and must inspect such stormwater controls and
repair or modify them in accordance with Part 4. The permit in Part 5
requires all construction operators to prepare a stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) that identifies all sources of pollution, and
describes control measures used to minimize pollutants discharged from
the construction site. Part 6 details the requirements for terminating
coverage under the permit.
    The 2008 CGP permit provides coverage for discharges from
construction sites that occur in areas not covered by an approved State
NPDES program. EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 issued the
2008 CGP to replace the expired 2003 CGP for operators of new and
unpermitted ongoing construction projects. The geographic coverage and
scope of the 2008 CGP is listed in Appendix B of the permit.

C. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Modification of the 2008 CGP for a
One-Year Extension of the Expiration Date?

    As stated above, any NPDES permit issued after the effective date
of the C&D rule, whether issued by EPA or an authorized state, must
incorporate the substantive technology-based requirements of the rule
into the permit. The effective date of the C&D rule is February 1,
2010. Therefore, EPA's next permit, which will be issued after the
effective date of the C&D rule, will require that the requirements of
the rule be incorporated into the permit. While as discussed above, EPA
wants to issue a CGP that incorporates the C&D ELG as soon as possible
in order to provide guidance to state permitting authorities, today's
one-year extension is necessary due to EPA's judgment that an extension
of one year is needed to provide sufficient time to incorporate the new
C&D rule requirements, provide guidance to state permitting
authorities, and to be able to manage the additional actions and
initiatives that are being undertaken at the same time by the Agency.
Without the one-year extension, EPA fears that it would be left with an
inadequate amount of time to issue a new CGP, placing potentially
thousands of construction projects at risk of discharging without an
effective stormwater permit.
    Prior to the extension, the 2008 CGP would have expired on June 30,
2010, giving EPA approximately seven months to propose and finalize a
new CGP. In EPA's judgment, the seven-month period would have been
insufficient to properly draft new requirements that reflect the C&D
rule, and to modify these permit conditions in response to public
comments. The seven-month timeframe to propose and finalize a new
permit would have been impracticable based on EPA's past experience in
issuing stormwater general permits, in general, and with the
construction general permit specifically. In the past, EPA required an
estimated eighteen months to propose and finalize the 2003 CGP, and a
similar amount of time for the previous construction general permits.
While EPA does not believe the 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)
for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities was
typical, that permit required almost three years to finalize after the
proposed permit was published. Beyond incorporating updated
modifications to the permit based on changes to the technology-based
and water quality-based effluent limitations into the permit, EPA is
required to conduct many additional tasks that are automatically
required of final Federal actions, such as conducting consultations
under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Properties Act,
obtaining CWA section 401 certifications for the permit from States and
Indian Country lands, providing the public with an opportunity to
comment, and responding to all comments received during the public
comment period. Separately, these tasks have historically required more
than seven months. The combined effect of these tasks, which are each
necessary to issue a general permit, on EPA's schedule for permit
issuance is to make a seven-month permit issuance timeframe
impracticable.
    While a seven-month schedule to finalize a new CGP would be
impracticable under the circumstances, as discussed above, what would
have made this period of time even more challenging is the
incorporation of the new Federal C&D rule requirements into the general
permit. The C&D rule has introduced several concepts that may be new to
most construction sites, including the requirement for certain sized
construction sites to comply with a numeric effluent limitation for
turbidity. Additionally, the non-numeric effluent limitations in the
C&D ELG will need to be properly translated into permit conditions and
modified based on public comments received. The additional one-year
extension will ensure that the Agency has sufficient time to accomplish
these tasks.
    Also weighing heavily in favor of extending the expiration date of
the 2008 CGP are the risks associated with failing to issue a
replacement permit prior to the 2008 CGP's original expiration date. If
EPA fails to issue a new CGP before the expiration of the 2008 CGP, no
new construction projects would be able to be eligible for coverage by
the 2008 CGP, leaving individual NPDES permits as the only available
option for permitting new projects. The sole reliance on individual
permits will mean that discharge authorizations will be delayed due to
the greater amount of time and Agency resources that are required for
developing and issuing individual permits. EPA is unwilling to risk the
possibility of such delays. The one-year extension to the 2008 CGP's
expiration date will provide the Agency with the time needed to issue a
new permit, without any gaps in permit coverage.

D. EPA's Authority To Modify NPDES Permits

    EPA regulations establish when the permitting authority may make
modifications to existing NPDES permits. In relevant part, EPA
regulations state that ``[w]hen the Director receives any information *
* * he or she may determine whether or not one or more of the causes
listed in paragraph (a) * * * of this section for modification * * *
exist. If cause exists, the Director may modify * * * the permit
accordingly, subject to the limitations of 40 CFR 124.5(c).'' 40 CFR
122.62. For purposes of this Federal Register notice, the relevant
cause for modification is at 40 CFR 122.62(a)(2), which states a permit
may be modified when ``[t]he Director has received new

information'' and that information was not available at the time of
permit issuance * * * and would have justified the application of
different permit conditions at the time of issuance.'' Pursuant to EPA
regulations, ``[w]hen a permit is modified, only the conditions subject
to the modification are reopened.'' 40 CFR 122.62.
    In the case of the 2008 CGP, a permit modification is justified
based on the new information EPA received since issuance of the 2008
CGP in July 2008, in terms of the new actions EPA is planning or
undertaking that are putting new demands on the Agency's available
resources in the NPDES stormwater program. New actions and the
resulting resource demands have come about as a result of EPA's desire
to respond to the 2008 National Research Council report, Urban
Stormwater Management in the United States (see http://www.epa.gov/
npdes/pubs/nrc_stormwaterreport.pdf), and to take action under the
President's May 2009 Executive Order on Chesapeake Bay Protection and
Restoration (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/
Executive-Order-Chesapeake-Bay-Protection-and-Restoration/). Related to
these efforts, EPA has announced its intention to initiate a national
rulemaking to establish a program to reduce stormwater discharges from
new development and redevelopment, and to make other regulatory
improvements to strengthen its stormwater program. Refer to http://
www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking. EPA's meeting these new
demands, while implementing new Federal requirements for the
construction and development industry, is not practical in a seven-
month time period. Additionally, at the time of the 2008 CGP was
issued, EPA did not know the final content of the C&D ELG. If this
information was available at the time of permit issuance, it would have
justified EPA establishing an expiration date for the 2008 CGP later
than midnight June 30, 2010. As a result, cause exists under EPA
regulations to justify modification of the 2008 CGP to extend the
expiration date of the permit from midnight June 30, 2010 to midnight
June 30, 2011.

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: January 20, 2010.
Curt Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Dated: January 20, 2010.
Carl-Axel P. Soderberg,
Division Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA
Region 2.
    Dated: January 20, 2010.
Barbara A. Finazzo,
Division Director, Division of Environmental Planning & Protection, EPA
Region 2.
    Dated: January 20, 2010.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3.
    Dated: January 20, 2010.
Timothy C. Henry,
Associate Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
    Dated: January 20, 2010.
Miguel I. Flores,
Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.
    Dated: January 20, 2010.
William A. Spratlin,
Director, Wetlands and Pesticides Division, EPA Region 7.
    Dated: January 20, 2010.
Stephen S. Tuber,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships & Regulatory
Assistance, EPA Region 8.
    Dated: January 20, 2010.
Alexis Strauss,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.
    Dated: January 20, 2010.
Michael A. Bussell,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2010-1743 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10415-10422]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4041]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM96-1-037]

Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
proposing to amend its regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 to incorporate by
reference the latest version (Version 2.0) of business practice
standards adopted by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant of the North American
Energy Standards Board (NAESB) applicable to natural gas pipelines.\1\
The Commission also proposes to provide guidance on the standards the
Commission applies to requests for waivers or extensions of time to
comply with NAESB Standards. These standards can be obtained from NAESB
at 1301 Fannin, Suite 2350, Houston, TX 77002, telephone: (713) 356-
0060, http://www.naesb.org, and are available for viewing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission's proposal includes incorporation of the
minor corrections and errata to the Version 2.0 Standards made by
NAESB and reported to the Commission on June 28, 2011, October 11,
2011 and December 22, 2011.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments are due March 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adam Bednarczyk (technical issues), Office of Energy Market Regulation,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Tony Dobbins (technical issues), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

138 FERC ] 61,124

February 16, 2012.

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to amend its regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 to incorporate by reference
the latest version (Version 2.0) of business practice standards adopted
by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) of the North American Energy
Standards Board (NAESB) applicable to natural gas pipelines. The
Commission also proposes to provide guidance on the standards the
Commission applies to requests for waivers or extensions of time to
comply with NAESB Standards. The Commission's proposal includes
incorporation of the minor corrections and errata made by NAESB and
reported to the Commission on June 28, 2011, October 11, 2011, and
December 22, 2011.

I. Background

    2. 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,\2\ 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 these standards will become part of the Commission's
regulations and compliance by interstate natural gas pipelines will
become mandatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This series of orders began with the Commission's issuance
of Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,038 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On March 4, 2011, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission
that it had adopted and ratified Version 2.0 of its business practice
standards applicable to natural gas pipelines. The Version 2.0
Standards revised the Version 1.9 Standards to include: (1) Standards
to support gas-electric interdependency; (2) standards created for
Capacity Release redesign due to the elimination of Electronic Data
Interchange (EDI) for Capacity Release Upload information; (3)
standards to support the Electronic Delivery Mechanism (EDM); (4)
standards to support the Customer Security Administration (CSA)
Process; (5) standards for pipeline postings of information regarding
waste heat; and (6) minor technical maintenance revisions designed to
more efficiently process wholesale natural gas transactions.
    4. On June 28, 2011, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission
that it had made modifications to the NAESB WGQ Version 1.9 and 2.0
Standards to correct various minor errors. The errata corrections make
minor revisions to the NAESB WGQ Standards and Data Elements including
revisions to the: (1) Datasets for Additional Standards; (2) Nomination
Related Datasets; (3) Flowing Gas Related Standards; (4) Invoicing
Related Datasets; (5) EDM Related Standards; and (6) Capacity Release
Related Standards and Datasets.
    5. Further, on October 11, 2011, NAESB filed a report informing the
Commission that it had made additional modifications to the NAESB WGQ
Version 2.0 Standards to correct various minor errors in the
Nominations Related and Capacity Release Related Datasets.
    6. Finally, on December 22, 2011, NAESB filed a report informing
the Commission that it had made additional modifications to the NAESB
WGQ Version 1.9 and 2.0 Standards to correct various minor errors. The
errata corrections make minor revisions to the NAESB WGQ Standards and
Datasets including revisions to the: (1) Nominations Related Datasets;
(2) Capacity Release Related Datasets; and (3) Quadrant Electronic
Delivery Mechanism Related Standards.

II. Significant Changes and Additions Contained in the Version 2.0
Standards

A. Gas-Electric Communications

    7. In Order Nos. 698 and 698-A,\3\ the Commission incorporated by
reference the NAESB Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) and WGQ Gas/
Electric Coordination Standards. These standards were adopted to ensure
that pipelines have relevant planning information to assist in
maintaining the operational integrity and reliability of pipeline
service, as well as to provide gas-fired power plant operators with
information as to whether hourly flow deviations can be honored. The
standards also required electric transmission operators and power plant
operators to sign up to receive operational flow order notices from
connecting pipelines as well as other critical notices. These standards
ensured that operators of the electric grid could stay abreast of
developments involving natural gas pipelines that can affect the
reliability of electric service. The standards required that, upon
request, a gas-fired power plant operator must provide to the
appropriate independent electric balancing authority or electric
reliability coordinator pertinent information regarding its service
levels for gas transportation (firm or interruptible) and for gas
supply (firm, fixed or variable quantity, or interruptible).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines; Standards for Business Practices for Public Utilities,
Order No. 698, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,251, order on clarification
and reh'g, Order No. 698-A, 121 FERC ] 61,264 (2007).
    \4\ Order No. 698, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,251 at P 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards, NAESB modified and
developed additional standards to further enhance that coordination.
NAESB made modifications to its WGQ Standards 4.3.28, 4.3.29, and
5.3.38 and developed new Standards 5.3.70 and 5.3.71 to enhance the
clarity of the content and format of critical, non-critical, and
planned service outage notices issued by pipelines. These modifications
were made to allow Transportation Service Providers the flexibility to
communicate additional clarity beyond the currently defined notice
types through the addition of 15 new notice types. The expansion from
the current 12 notice types to 27 notice types increases the ability of
pipelines to detail the subject matter of the notices.\5\ The expansion
also allows the notices to be easily identified and sorted, thereby
promoting easier prioritization and organization of these

communications. Some of the notices that may be of particular relevance
to coordination between the gas and electric industries are:
Operational alerts; over-under performance; pipeline conditions;
planned service outages; storage and weather alerts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The new Version 2.0 Notice Types subjects are: Computer
System Status; Customer Services Update; Gas Quality; Imbalance
Trading; Location Change; Operational Alert; Over-Under Performance;
Pipeline Conditions; Planned Service Outages; Storage; Weather
Alert; Capacity Release; Cash Out (cash liquidation of
transportation imbalances); PTR (Plant Thermal Reduction) Percentage
(this is the amount a nomination is to be reduced due to natural gas
processing); and Scheduling Alert (information regarding scheduled
gas quantities and potential revisions and/or adjustments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. NAESB modified the existing gas-electric coordination WGQ
Standards 0.2.1 through 0.2.3, 0.3.11 through 0.3.15; and created a new
Standard 0.2.4 to further define the roles and responsibilities of each
participant under the Gas/Electric Operational Communication Standards
promulgated in Order No. 698. Specifically, NAESB modified the WGQ
Standards in order to define the terms Reliability Coordinator and
Power Plant Gas Coordinator to replace existing terminology of Regional
Transmission Organizations, Independent System Operators, any other
appropriate independent transmission operators, and Power Plant
Operators respectively. NAESB modified WGQ Standard 0.3.14 to change
the parties to whom pipelines are required to provide notification of
operational flow orders and other critical notices. Pipelines are now
required to provide Balancing Authorities and/or Reliability
Coordinators, and Power Plant Gas Coordinators such information.

B. Capacity Release Upload Transactions

    10. In the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards, NAESB sought to modify
electronic capacity release transaction standards to reflect NAESB's
elimination of the largely unused EDI requirements for Capacity Release
Upload information. NAESB added two standards related to notices
provided by Transmission Service Providers and one standard related to
error messages. The NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards also add four new
capacity release standard datasets to replace fourteen Version 1.9
Datasets that NAESB deleted in an effort to restructure and simplify
capacity release transactional information.

C. Electronic Delivery Mechanism (EDM)

    11. In the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards, NAESB adopted several
standards to ensure the consistency of Transportation Service Provider
Web site data labels as well as the ability to provide Informational
Postings report downloads in a comma-separated-value (CSV) file format.
These changes were undertaken to ensure that NAESB's technical
standards remain consistent with current technical practices.

D. Customer Security Administration

    12. In the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards, NAESB adopted Standard
4.3.100 to support the CSA processes. This new standard establishes a
timeline for a Transportation Service Provider to respond to a request
from a service requester for information, such as user name and
security privileges, regarding those parties permitted to access the
Transportation Service Provider's ``Customer Activities'' Web site on
the service requester's behalf. The new standard also establishes the
number of representatives a service requester can authorize to receive
such information and details the related user management
responsibilities of the service requester.

E. Waste Heat Recovery Feasibility

    13. NAESB sought to facilitate the Commission's FY 2009-2014
Strategic Plan \6\ objective of evaluating the feasibility of
installing waste heat recovery systems as a way to promote the
efficient design and operation of jurisdictional natural gas
facilities. NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standard 4.3.23 specifies the
location where information regarding the feasibility of waste heat
recovery is to be posted on the Informational Postings sections of
pipelines' Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Strategic Plan, FY
2009-2014 at 25. http://www.ferc.gov/about/strat-docs/FY-09-14-strat-plan-print.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Operationally Available and Unsubscribed Capacity

    14. In the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards, NAESB added several new
Standards, 0.3.18 through 0.3.22, and replaced an existing Dataset
5.4.13 with new Datasets 0.4.2 and 0.4.3, to further specify the
information on operationally available and unsubscribed capacity that
pipelines disseminate. NAESB indicates that these standards are
intended to specify the Business Practice Standards and Dataset
requirements for reporting operationally available and unsubscribed
capacity. NAESB included these new Business Practice Standards in a new
section entitled ``Operating Capacity and Unsubscribed'' in its
Business Practice Standards for Additional Standards.

G. Clean Up and Miscellaneous Revisions

    15. In the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards, NAESB also continued
the process of making minor clarifications and corrections to existing
standards including: (1) Revising the formatting, appearance, or
descriptions; (2) clarifying or correcting code values to tables; and
(3) making minor non-substantive changes.

III. Discussion

A. Proposed Action

    16. In this NOPR, the Commission proposes to incorporate by
reference in its regulations Version 2.0 of the NAESB WGQ's consensus
business practice standards,\7\ with certain exceptions.\8\ Adoption of
the Version 2.0 Standards will continue the process of updating and
improving NAESB's business practice standards for the benefit of the
wholesale gas market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In its Version 2.0 Standards, the WGQ made the following
changes to its Version 1.9 Standards:
    a. It revised Principle 4.1.32; Definitions 0.2.1, 0.2.2, 0.2.3,
5.2.1, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5; Standards 0.3.11 through 0.3.15, 2.3.34,
4.3.16, 4.3.23, 4.3.28, 4.3.29, 4.3.54, 5.3.1 through 5.3.14,
5.3.16, 5.3.19 through 5.3.21, 5.3.24 through 5.3.27, 5.3.31 through
5.3.33, 5.3.38, 5.3.42, 5.3.48, 5.3.50, 5.3.51, 5.3.60, 5.3.62,
5.3.62a, and 5.3.63 through 5.3.69; and Datasets 1.4.1 through
1.4.6, 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.6, 2.4.7, 3.4.1, 3.4.4, 5.4.14
through 5.4.17, and 5.4.20 through 5.4.22.
    b. It added Definition 0.2.4; Standards 0.3.18 through 0.3.22,
4.3.100 through 4.3.102, 5.3.70 through 5.3.72; and Datasets 0.4.2,
0.4.3, and 5.4.24 through 5.4.27.
    c. It deleted Standards 5.3.17, 5.3.30, 5.3.43, and 5.3.61; and
Datasets 5.4.1 through 5.4.13, 5.4.18, and 5.4.19.
    \8\ We discuss in sub-section A.1 below, those NAESB WGQ Version
2.0 Standards that we propose not to incorporate by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. 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.\9\ Moreover, because the industry has to
conduct 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 (NTT&AA), Congress affirmatively requires Federal agencies
to use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standards
organizations, like NAESB, as a means to carry out policy objectives or
activities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The NAESB process first requires a super-majority vote of 17
out of 25 members of the WGQ's Executive Committee with support from
at least two members from each of the five industry segments--
Distributors, End Users, Pipelines, Producers, and Services
(including marketers and computer service providers). For final
approval, 67 percent of the WGQ's general membership voting must
ratify the standards.
    \10\ Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15
U.S.C. 272, note (1997).

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

1. Proposal Not To Adopt Certain Standards
a. Standards Not Adopted in Previous Rulemakings
    18. The Commission is continuing its past practice and is not
proposing to incorporate by reference Standards 4.3.4 and 10.3.2,
because they are inconsistent with the Commission's record retention
requirement in 18 CFR 284.12(b)(3)(v).\11\ Also, consistent with past
practice, we are not incorporating NAESB's interpretation of its
standards into the Commission's regulations because, while
interpretations may provide useful guidance, they are not determinative
and we will not require pipelines to comply with NAESB's
interpretations.\12\ Likewise, consistent with prior practice we will
not incorporate optional contracts into our regulations because the
Commission does not require the use of these contracts.\13\ In
addition, the Commission is not proposing to incorporate by reference
the WEQ/WGQ eTariff Related Standards because the Commission has
already adopted standards and protocols for electronic tariff filings
based on the NAESB Standards.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Standards for Business Practices for Interstate
Natural Gas Pipelines, Final Rule, Order No. 587-T, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,289, at P 5 & n. 9 (2009).
    \12\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication
Protocols for Public Utilities, Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,299, at n. 16 (2009).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See Electronic Tariff Filings, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,276
(2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21
    19. NAESB adopted new Standards\15\ and Datasets\16\ in Version 2.0
designed to specify the business practices for the dissemination of
operationally available and unsubscribed capacity information as
required under section 284.13 of the Commission's regulations. The new
NAESB WGQ Standards are intended to provide industry-wide
standardization of certain data elements required to be provided as
part of the Commission's reporting requirements for interstate
pipelines. However, two of the proposed standards, WGQ Standards 0.3.19
and 0.3.21, appear to be inconsistent with the Commission's posting
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards 0.3.18 through 0.3.22.
    \16\ NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Datasets 0.4.2 and 0.4.3 were created
to replace deleted NAESB WGQ Version 1.9 Dataset 5.4.13
(Operationally Available and Unsubscribed Capacity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. NAESB WGQ Standard 0.3.19 states:

    Operationally Available Capacity (OAC), Operating Capacity (OPC)
and Total Scheduled Quantity (TSQ) are associated information and
should be reported at the same level. Transportation Service
Providers should report OAC, OPC and TSQ at, at least one of, point,
segment or zone level.

    21. While this standard allows the pipeline to choose whether to
post Operationally Available Capacity, Operating Capacity, and Total
Scheduled Quantity at either a point, segment or zone level, section
284.13(d) \17\ of our regulations does not permit the pipeline to limit
the posting to a point, segment, or zone, but requires posting at all
receipt and delivery points and on the mainline. Section 284.13(d)
states that the pipeline must post ``information relevant to the
availability of all transportation services whenever capacity is
scheduled, including, but not limited to, the availability of capacity
at receipt points, on the mainline, at delivery points, and in storage
fields.'' Because the NAESB standards are intended to implement
Commission posting requirements, we are concerned about inconsistencies
between those standards and the regulations. We therefore are proposing
not to incorporate by reference Standard 0.3.19 and pipelines are
expected to continue to post information in accordance with Sec.
284.13 of the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 18 CFR 284.13(d). Section 284.13(d) states in relevant
part:
    (d) Capacity and flow information. (1) An interstate pipeline
must provide on its Internet web site and in downloadable file
formats, in conformity with Sec.  284.12 of this part, equal and
timely access to information relevant to the availability of all
transportation services whenever capacity is scheduled, including,
but not limited to, the availability of capacity at receipt points,
on the mainline, at delivery points, and in storage fields, whether
the capacity is available directly from the pipeline or through
capacity release, the total design capacity of each point or segment
on the system, the amount scheduled at each point or segment
whenever capacity is scheduled, and all planned and actual service
outages or reductions in service capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. NAESB WGQ Standard 0.3.21 states:

    The Total Scheduled Quantity and the Operationally Available
Capacity information should be updated by the Transportation Service
Provider to reflect scheduling changes and be reported promptly
following the scheduling deadline associated with the timely and
evening nominations cycles.

    While this standard requires the posting of information only at the
timely and evening nominations cycles, section 284.13(d) does not limit
the posting to only two cycles but requires the posting of capacity
availability and scheduled capacity ``whenever capacity is scheduled.''
This would include postings for the two intra-day cycles during the gas
day.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NAESB Standard 1.3.2 established four nomination cycles
(Timely, Evening, Intra-day 1, and Intra-Day 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. We therefore are proposing not to incorporate by reference
Standard 0.3.21. While NAESB is considering a revision to Standard
0.3.21, pipelines are expected to continue to adhere to the regulations
and post available capacity at the four intra-day nomination
opportunities. In addition, we note that some pipelines are providing
additional nomination opportunities (such as hourly nominations) under
certain rate schedules. The regulation requires posting ``whenever
capacity is scheduled,'' which would include posting for these
additional nomination opportunities as well as posting for the standard
four nomination periods.

B. Proposed Implementation Procedures

    24. The Commission proposes that natural gas pipelines be required
to implement the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards in accordance with the
following schedule. We propose to require compliance with the NAESB WGQ
Version 2.0 Standards beginning on the first day of the month after the
fourth full month following issuance of the final rule. So if the final
rule were issued on February 17, 2012, compliance would be required
beginning on July 1, 2012. Based on past practice, we are proposing
this implementation schedule to give the natural gas pipelines subject
to these standards adequate time to implement these changes. In
addition, the Commission proposes that pipelines be required to file
tariff records to reflect the changed standards at least two months
before the implementation date.
    25. The Commission also proposes to revise the compliance filing
requirements to increase the transparency of the pipelines'
incorporation by reference of the NAESB WGQ Standards so that shippers
and the Commission will know which tariff provisions implements each
standard as well as the status of each standard.
    (1) The pipelines should designate a single tariff section under
which every NAESB standard is listed.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ This section should be a separate tariff record under the
Commission's electronic tariff filing requirement and be filed
electronically using the eTariff portal using the Type of Filing
Code 580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) For each standard, the pipeline would indicate in the tariff
section listing all the NAESB standards:
    (a) Whether the standard is incorporated by reference;

    (b) For those standards not incorporated by reference, the tariff
provision that complies with the standard; \20\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, pipelines are required to include the full
text of the NAESB nomination timeline standards (WGQ Standards
1.3.2(i-v) and 5.3.2) in their tariffs. Standards for Business
Practices for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Final Rule, Order
No. 587-U, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,307, at P 39 & n. 42 (2010). The
pipeline would indicate which tariff provision complies with each of
these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) An indication as to whether the pipeline has been granted a
waiver, extension of time, or other variance with respect to compliance
with the standard.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) 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 indicates the standard for which a waiver or extension of
time was granted, and the docket number or order citation to the
proceeding in which the waiver or extension was granted.
    This approach would give Commission staff and all shippers a common
location that identifies the way the pipeline is incorporating all the
NAESB WGQ Standards and the standards with which it is required to
comply. The Commission will post on its eLibrary Web site (under Docket
No. RM96-1-037) a sample tariff format, to provide filers an
illustrative example to aid them in preparing their compliance
filings.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Waivers and Extensions of Time

    26. In previous compliance proceedings, there has been a marked
increase in the number of requests for waivers or for extensions of
time to comply with standards. The Commission's orders on these
requests have developed a set of general principles which the
Commission intends to follow in reviewing such requests in the
future.\23\ The following will help to clarify Commission policy
regarding requests for waivers and extensions of time as well as the
information that must be included with all such requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural
Gas Pipelines, compliance order, 133 FERC ] 61,096, at P 4 (October
28 Order), further compliance order, 133 FERC ] 61,185, at P 4
(2010) (November 30 Order); B-R Pipeline Co., 128 FERC ] 61,126
(2009) (B-R Pipeline).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) All waivers and extensions of time are limited to the
individual set of NAESB standards being adopted (in this case NAESB
WGQ's Version 2.0 Standards). Pipelines will need to seek renewal of
any such waivers or extensions for each version of the standards the
Commission adopts.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In B-R Pipeline, 128 FERC ] 61,126 at P 6, the Commission
stated that ``each time the Commission adopts new versions of [the]
standards * * * pipelines must request waiver [or extension of time]
of the new standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Waivers or extensions of time will not be granted for standards
that merely describe the process by which a pipeline must perform a
business function, if it performs that function, where the standard
does not require the pipeline to perform the business function.\25\ In
such a case, as long as the pipeline does not perform the business
function, it is not required to follow the standard and hence requires
no waiver or extension of time. If, however, the pipeline revises its
tariff to perform the business function, the standard(s) will already
be in the tariff and the pipeline will be required to comply with the
standard(s).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ October 28 Order, 133 FERC ] 61,096 at P 9; November 30
Order, 133 FERC ] 61,185 at P 7.
    \26\ As an example, Standard 4.3.96 requires pipelines to
provide hourly gas quality information ``to the extent that the TSP
is required to do so in its tariff or general terms and conditions,
a settlement agreement, or by order of an applicable regulatory
authority.'' A pipeline that does not provide hourly gas quality
information, therefore, does not require a waiver or extension of
time for compliance with this standard, because the standard imposes
no obligation on the pipeline to comply with the standard until it
provides hourly gas quality information. See October 28 Order, 133
FERC ] 61,096 at P 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) If a pipeline is seeking a renewal of a waiver or extension of
time request, it must provide a current justification for the request
and must include a citation to an order or the docket number of the
proceeding in which the initial waiver or extension of time was
granted.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Order No. 587-U, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,307 at P 38-
39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) In cases in which pipelines maintain they should not be
required to incur the costs of implementing standards shippers are not
interested in utilizing, waivers ordinarily will not be granted.
Instead, the approach to these requests will be to grant the pipeline
an extension of time for compliance until 60 days after the pipeline
receives a request to comply with the standard.\28\ Waivers are
justified only when the pipeline can demonstrate that there is good
cause not to require the implementation of a standard even though
shippers want to use the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See T.W. Phillips Pipeline Corp., 137 FERC ] 61,104, at P
11 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) The Commission generally will not entertain waiver or extension
of time requests for NAESB WGQ Definitions (x.2.z Standards). The NAESB
WGQ Definitions specify and elucidate specific terms of generally
applicable business practices and do not require a pipeline to perform
any action or incur expense to comply which such Definitions.
    27. To provide guidance to pipelines in filing requests for waivers
or extensions of time, the Commission also will explain its general
policy regarding waivers of the four general categories of NAESB
standards: (1) Business practice standards; (2) requirements to conduct
business electronically using the Internet (Internet Business
Standards); (3) Commission Internet posting requirements (Internet
Posting Standards); and (4) requirements to conduct computer-to-
computer transactions using EDI. It is important for pipelines to
identify clearly in their filings the specific standards from which
they are seeking waivers or extensions of time. In particular,
pipelines need to be clear as to whether they are requesting waivers of
the Internet Requirements or the EDI requirements.
    (1) Waivers or Extensions of Time to Comply with Business Practice
Standards. Waivers or extensions of time to comply with business
practice standards will generally be denied because these standards
establish the basic principles on which business is required to be
conducted. Nonetheless, if a pipeline believes such a waiver or
extension of time to comply is justified, it must detail specific
reasons why it seeks the waiver or extension of time to comply with the
standard and address alternative methods by which it could comply with
the principle of the standard.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Carolina Gas Transmission Corp., 131 FERC ] 61,211, at
P 4 (2010); MoGas Pipeline LLC, 131 FERC ] 61,251, at P 7 (2010);
Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc., 132 FERC ] 61,262, at P 8
(2010) (requiring small pipelines to use manual methods of
implementing index-based capacity releases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Waivers or Extensions of Time to Comply with the Internet
Business Standards. Waivers or extensions of time to comply with the
requirement to conduct business over the Internet generally will be
granted based on a pipeline's individual circumstances, such as the
size of the pipeline, the number of shippers, its ability to provide
electronic services, the demand for such services, and alternative
means by which the pipeline conducts the business practice. For smaller
pipelines, the Commission has granted waivers of the Internet Business
Standards when such pipelines have shown that complying with such
standards would

prove unduly burdensome.\30\ For larger pipelines, the Commission has
rarely granted waivers or extensions of time to comply with the
Internet Business Standards.\31\ However, if a pipeline can demonstrate
that shippers are not utilizing a standard, then the Commission will
grant an extension of time to comply. Such an extension of time ensures
that pipelines do not needlessly have to spend money revamping computer
services that shippers do not use while, at the same time, ensuring
that shippers have access to such services if they need them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ October 28 Order, 133 FERC ] 61,096 at P 17-18; November 30
Order, 133 FERC ] 61,185 at P 9.
    \31\ October 28 Order, 133 FERC ] 61,096 at P 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Waivers or Extensions of Time to Comply with Internet Posting
Standards. The Commission rarely grants waivers or extensions of time
to comply with the posting requirements because posting of this
information is required by the Commission's regulations. The cost of
maintaining and posting information on an Internet Web site is not
great even for smaller pipelines.
    (4) Waivers or Extensions of Time to Comply with EDI standards. The
Commission generally will grant waivers or extensions of time to comply
with the EDI requirements based on a pipeline's individual
circumstances, such as the size of the pipeline, the number of
shippers, its ability to provide electronic services, the demand for
such services, and alternative means by which the pipeline conducts the
business practice. For smaller pipelines, the Commission generally
grants waivers of the EDI Standards when such pipelines have shown that
complying with such standards would prove unduly burdensome.\32\ For
larger pipelines on which shippers are not utilizing a standard, in
lieu of an outright waiver, the Commission generally will grant an
extension of time until such time as a request is made to use EDI.\33\
As with the EDI requirements relating to capacity releases,\34\ NAESB
also can review whether certain business transactions still need to be
available through EDI, given the lack of usage, and pipelines can also
seek such revisions from NAESB for EDI standards whose upkeep no longer
appears to be cost justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra n. 29.
    \33\ See supra n. 30; Texas Eastern Transmission LP., 100 FERC ]
61,364 (2002) (granting an extension of time for unused EDI
datasets, but requiring compliance with datasets for publicly
available capacity release information).
    \34\ See supra P 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

    28. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 (section 11)
(February 10, 1998) provides that federal agencies should publish a
request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to issue or
revise a regulation proposing to adopt a voluntary consensus standard
or a government-unique standard. In this NOPR, the Commission is
proposing to incorporate by reference voluntary consensus standards
developed by the WGQ.

V. Information Collection Statement

    29. The following collections of information contained in this
proposed rule are being submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The Commission solicits
comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the
information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the provided
burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated
information techniques. The following burden estimates include the
costs to implement the WGQ's definitions and business practice
standards for interstate natural gas pipelines and electronic
communication protocols. The burden estimates are primarily related to
start-up to implement these standards and regulations and will not
result in ongoing costs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number of
             Data collection                  Number of       responses per       Hours per      Total number of
                                             respondents       respondent         response            hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-545 \35\...........................               161                 1                10             1,610
FERC-549C \36\..........................               161                 1                22             3,542
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................  ................  ................  ................             5,152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collections (Reporting and Recordkeeping, if
appropriate) = 5,152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Data collection FERC-545 covers rate change filings made by
natural gas pipelines, including tariff changes (OMB Control No.
1902-0154).
    \36\ Data collection FERC-549C covers Standards for Business
Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines (OMB Control No. 1902-
0174).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the
costs to comply with these requirements. It has projected the average
annualized cost for all respondents to be the following: \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The total annualized cost for the two information
collections is $303,968. This number is reached by multiplying the
total hours to prepare a response (hours) by an hourly wage estimate
of $59 (a composite estimate that includes legal, technical and
support staff wages and benefits obtained from the Bureau of Labor
Statistic data at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm and
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm rates). $303,968 = $59
x 5,152.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          FERC-545          FERC-549C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Capital/Startup Costs....           $94,990          $208,987
Annualized Costs (Operations &                     N/A               N/A
 Maintenance).......................
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total Annualized Costs..........            94,990           208,987
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Cost for all Respondents = $303,968.
    30. OMB regulations \38\ require OMB to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is
submitting notification of this proposed rule to OMB. These information
collections are mandatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rates Change (Non-Formal);
FERC-

549C, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines.
    Action: Proposed collections.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0154, 1902-0174.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, (i.e., Natural Gas
Pipelines, applicable to only a few small businesses.) Although the
intraday reporting requirements will affect electric plant operators,
the Commission is not imposing the reporting burden of adopting these
standards on those entities.
    Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business
procedures, capital/start-up).
    Necessity of Information: The proposals in this NOPR would, if
implemented, upgrade the Commission's current business practices and
communication standards by specifically: (1) Adding and revising
standards allowing the elimination of EDI requirements for Capacity
Release Upload information; (2) creating and modifying existing
information posting requirements for Web sites and browsers; (3)
requiring pipelines to provide security information; (4) requiring the
posting of information on waste heat recovery feasibility on the
Internet; (5) modifying pipeline notice content and creating new
pipeline notice types; and (6) creating standards to ensure NAESB data
format is consistent with other data reporting via the Internet by
using CSV.
    The implementation of these data requirements will provide
additional transparency to informational posting Web sites and will
improve communication standards, including gas-electric communications.
The implementation of these standards and regulations will promote the
additional efficiency and reliability of the gas industries' operations
thereby helping the Commission to carry out its responsibilities under
the Natural Gas Act of promoting the efficiency and reliability of the
gas industries' operations. In addition, the Commission's Office of
Enforcement will use the data for general industry oversight.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements
pertaining to business practices of natural gas pipelines and made a
preliminary determination that the proposed revisions are necessary to
establish more efficient coordination between the gas and electric
industries. Requiring such information ensures both a common means of
communication and common business practices to limit miscommunication
for participants engaged in the sale of electric energy at wholesale
and the transportation of natural gas. These requirements conform to
the Commission's plan for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the natural gas pipeline
industries. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal
review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden
estimates associated with the information requirements.
    31. 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>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    32. 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-
4638, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].

VI. Environmental Analysis

    33. 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.\39\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\40\ The actions proposed here fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and
transportation of natural gas that requires no construction of
facilities.\41\ Therefore, an environmental assessment is unnecessary
and has not been prepared as part of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783
(1987).
    \40\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \41\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    34. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \42\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\43\
The SBA has established a size standard for pipelines transporting
natural gas, stating that a firm is small if its annual receipts are
less than $7 million.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \43\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \44\ 13 CFR 121.201, subsection 486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. The regulations proposed here impose requirements only on
interstate pipelines, the majority of which are not small businesses.
Most companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA's
definition of a small entity. Approximately 161 entities would be
potential respondents subject to data collection FERC-545 reporting
requirements and also be subject to data collection FERC 549-C
reporting requirements. Nearly all of these entities are large
entities. For the year 2010 (the most recent year for which information
is available), only seven companies not affiliated with larger
companies had annual revenues of less than $7 million, which is about
three percent of the total universe of potential respondents. Moreover,
these requirements are designed to benefit all customers, including
small businesses. The Commission estimates that the one-time
implementation cost of these standards is $303,968, or $1,888 per
company.\45\ The Commission does not consider the estimated $1,888
impact per entity to be significant. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ This number is derived by dividing the total cost figure by
the number of respondents. $303,968/161 = $1,888.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Accordingly, pursuant to Sec.  605(b) of the RFA, the
regulations proposed herein should not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VIII. Comment Procedures

    37. The Commission invites interested persons to submit written
comments on the NAESB business practice standards

proposed for incorporation by reference in this NOPR, as well as any
related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to
discuss. Comments are due March 23, 2012. Comments must refer to Docket
No. RM96-1-037, and must include the commenter's name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their address. Comments may be filed
either in electronic or paper format.
    38. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. 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.
    39. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    40. 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

    41. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission'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.
    42. 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.
    43. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (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

    Incorporation by reference, Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
18 CFR part 284, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:

PART 284--CERTAIN SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS UNDER THE
NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES

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

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

    2. Section 284.12 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read
as follows:

Sec.  284.12  Standards for pipeline business operations and
communications.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Additional Standards (General Standards, Creditworthiness
Standards, Gas/Electric Operational Communications Standards and
Operating Capacity and Unsubscribed Standards) (Version 2.0, November
30, 2010) with the exception of Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21;
    (ii) Nominations Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010,
Minor Corrections Applied Through December 2, 2011);
    (iii) Flowing Gas Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30,
2010, Minor Corrections Applied through June 3, 2011);
    (iv) Invoicing Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010,
Minor Corrections Applied Through June 3, 2011);
    (v) Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
(Version 2.0, November 30, 2010, Minor Corrections Applied Through
December 2, 2011) with the exception of Standard 4.3.4;
    (vi) Capacity Release Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30,
2010, Minor Corrections Applied Through January 5, 2012); and
    (vii) Internet Electronic Transport Related Standards (Version 2.0,
November 30, 2010, Minor Corrections Applied January 2, 2011) with the
exception of Standard 10.3.2.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-4041 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32879-32880]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0516; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-12]

Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace; Forsyth, MT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Forsyth,
MT. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using Area
Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedures at Tillitt Field Airport. The FAA is proposing this
action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at
the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
0516; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-12, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2011-0516 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-12) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at  http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2011-0516 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ANM-12.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tillitt Field Airport,
Forsyth, MT, to accommodate aircraft using RNAV (GPS) standard
instrument approach procedures at Tillitt Field Airport. This action
would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the
airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use

of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Tillitt
Field Airport, Forsyth, MT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM MT E5 Forsyth, MT [Modified]

Tillitt Field Airport, MT
    (Lat. 46[deg]16'16 '' N., long. 106[deg]37'26 '' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Tillitt Field Airport, and within 2.5
miles north and 5.5 miles south of the 075[deg] bearing of the
airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 13 miles east of the
airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface within an area bounded by lat. 46[deg]31'00'' N., long.
107[deg]00'00'' W.; to lat. 46[deg]22'00'' N., long. 106[deg]03'00''
W.; to lat. 46[deg]05'00'' N., long. 106[deg]210'3'' W.; to lat.
46[deg]00'00'' N., long. 107[deg]15'00'' W.; to lat. 46[deg]15'00''
N., long. 107[deg]16'00'' W.; to lat. 46[deg]20'00'' N., long.
107[deg]00'00'' W., thence to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington on May 27, 2011.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-13944 Filed 6-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment: A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.