directly affect the U.S. wholesale gas markets.'' AGA Comments at
15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    105. Similarly, based upon comments we received in response to the
Posting NOPR, we will not require posting of data by segment. As noted
by TPA, ``most of the information already collected by intrastate
pipelines relates to scheduled volumes at receipt and delivery points,
rather than segments.'' \178\ Thus, the requirement in the Final Rule
focuses on obtaining and posting information already collected by
intrastate pipelines: we will require posting of scheduled volumes and
posting by receipt and delivery points, rather than segments.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ TPA Comments at 25.
    \179\ We note that some non-interstate pipelines currently post
data regarding pipeline use and availability by segment. We wish to
make clear that the Final Rule does not preclude pipelines from
posting such data. The Final Rule requires the posting of specific
data by major non-interstate pipelines at certain points of receipt
and delivery. A pipeline is free to post any additional data (e.g.,
additional points, postings by segment, etc.) that it believes would
be useful to its customers or as required by other regulatory
bodies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    106. We also appreciate the burden that would be placed upon major
non-interstate pipelines if we were to adopt a segment-based posting
approach. Nearly every commenter that discussed segment-based posting
acknowledged that the costs of such a methodology would be
substantial.\180\ We adopt a receipt and delivery point-based approach
that will capture much of the same data as a segment-based approach,
but that is less burdensome to implement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ See, e.g., TPA Comments at 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Exemptions to the Major Non-Interstate Pipeline Posting Requirements

    107. In consideration of the comments received in response to the
Posting NOPR, the Commission adopts three exemptions: for non-
interstate pipelines upstream of a processing plant; for non-interstate
pipelines that deliver almost exclusively to retail end-users; and for
storage providers. First, a major non-interstate pipeline will be
exempt from the posting requirement if it ``fall[s] entirely upstream
of a processing, treatment or dehydration plant.'' \181\ This language
excludes from the definition not only non-interstate pipelines located
upstream of a processing plant but also those located upstream of a
treatment or dehydration plant. Second, the Commission modifies the
end-use exemption, excluding a non-interstate pipeline if it delivers
more than 95 percent of its natural gas volumes directly to retail end-
users.\182\ To determine eligibility for the retail exception, a major
non-interstate pipeline must measure volumes by ``average deliveries
over the preceding three calendar years.'' \183\ Third, the Commission
provides a general exemption for storage providers.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ See new section 284.14(b)(1).
    \182\ See new section 284.14(b)(2).
    \183\ See new section 284.14(b)(4).
    \184\ See new section 284.14(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Non-Interstate Pipelines That Are Upstream of a Processing,
Treatment, or Dehydration Plant
a. Posting NOPR
    108. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission proposed that non-
interstate pipelines located upstream of a processing plant would be
exempt from the proposed regulations\185\ and requested comment on this
proposal.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Posting NOPR at P 69.
    \186\ Id. at P 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
    109. Commenters generally support the exemption for pipelines
upstream of the processing plant as price formation relies more on
flows downstream of the processing plant.\187\ However, several
commenters seek to clarify and, in some ways, expand the definition of
processing plant. These commenters request that the exemption be
expanded to exclude pipelines upstream of a treatment plant.\188\ Dow
Pipeline seeks to include nitrogen processing in the definition of
processing.\189\ Regency seeks to expand the exemption to exclude any
pipeline upstream of a processing, treatment or dehydration plant used
to remove liquid hydrocarbons or other substances from natural gas to
meet transmission pipeline quality specifications.\190\ NGSA contends
that a major non-interstate pipeline that lies upstream from another
major non-interstate pipeline and delivers solely into a single non-
interstate pipeline should be exempted from the posting requirement
because its volume will be reported by the downstream pipeline.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ See, e.g., Chevron Pipelines Comments at 22-23; TIPRO
Comments at 5.
    \188\ Copano Energy Comments at 8-9; ONEOK Gathering Companies
Comments at 5; TPA Comments at 32.
    \189\ Dow Pipeline Comments at 2-3.
    \190\ Regency Comments at 11-13.
    \191\ NGSA Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110. Several commenters seek an exemption specifically for
gathering pipelines.\192\ These commenters argue that the exemption for
pipelines upstream of a processing plant would

not exclude all gathering pipelines.\193\ They note that the exemption
for pipelines upstream of a processing plant was justified in part as a
way to exempt gathering pipelines, but that it does not exempt all
gathering pipelines.\194\ Shell asserts that a production and/or
gathering line should not be considered a ``pipeline'' and request that
the Commission define pipeline.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ Enbridge Comments at 2-4; EOG Resources Comments at 8-10;
Gas Processors Comments at 3-5; TPA Comments at 30-31.
    \193\ ONEOK Gathering Companies Comments at 5-11; Crosstex
Comments at 5; Enbridge Comments at 4-6
    \194\ Gas Processors Comments at 3-5.
    \195\ Shell Comments at 18-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    111. Some commenters assert that if gathering systems were required
to post at all of their receipt and delivery points, the burden would
be too great. For instance, Regency, which operates gathering systems,
estimates that requiring posting of its gathering system would cost $6-
10 million.\196\ These commenters request that the Commission exempt
gathering pipelines by using the ``primary function test.'' \197\ Dow
Pipeline argues that, if any portion of a major non-interstate pipeline
located upstream of a processing plant, the pipeline should be excluded
from the posting requirement.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Regency Comments at 8-9.
    \197\ Copano Energy Comments at 8-9; Encana Comments at 5-8; EOG
Resources Comments at 10-11; Kinder Morgan Intrastate Comments at
21.
    \198\ Dow Pipeline Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    112. Several commenters note that many gathering facilities are
downstream of a processing plant.\199\ For instance, ONEOK Gathering
Companies maintain that the proposed exemption for a pipeline that lies
upstream of a processing facility is insufficient to exempt gathering
facilities because gathering facilities have facilities downstream of a
processing facility. This fact, ONEOK Gathering Companies describe, is
recognized in the Commission's primary function test for determining a
gathering facility in which one factor is the location of the
processing plant.\200\ The fact that the Commission did not delineate
for which points a pipeline would post makes such an exemption even
more necessary, according to ONEOK Gathering Companies, as the burden
would be too great.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ DCP Midstream Comments at 5.
    \200\ ONEOK Gathering Companies Comments at 7.
    \201\ Id. at 7-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    113. The Commission adopts an exemption for major non-interstate
pipelines that lie entirely upstream of a processing, treatment, or
dehydration plant. The focus of this Final Rule is to make available
information on flows of gas that may be sold in interstate natural gas
markets. Prior to processing, treatment, or dehydration, natural gas is
generally not of sufficient quality to serve as a fungible product to
use in evaluating supply and demand fundamentals underlying the
interstate natural gas market. We clarify that nitrogen processing, as
suggested by Dow Pipeline, would be considered processing at a
processing plant for purposes of this exemption. Additionally, as
requested by TPA, the Commission clarifies that a pipeline may be
upstream of a processing plant if it flows into another line that flows
into a processing plant.
    114. The Commission will not provide a general exemption for
gathering pipelines. The increased delivery threshold of 50 million
MMBtu and the exemption for pipelines that lie entirely upstream of a
processing, treatment, or dehydration plant should be sufficient to
exclude most gathering pipelines. Further, these exemptions as written
will serve as a bright-line test for determining whether a major non-
interstate pipeline should post. This contrasts with the ``primary
function test'' advocated by some commenters. Adopting an exemption
based on the ``primary function test'' would require a Commission
determination of each gathering pipeline's eligibility and would be
burdensome for pipelines seeking to determine whether they must post
information. Moreover, the ``primary function test'' is a test adopted
by the Commission to determine whether a facility would fall outside of
the scope of our traditional NGA jurisdiction under section 1 of the
act. Use of this test could further confuse the distinction that the
Commission makes here between its traditional section 1 and its new
section 23 jurisdiction.
    115. We also decline to adopt an exemption for pipelines that lie
partially upstream and partially downstream of a processing, treatment,
or dehydration plant. Such an accommodation would confuse the exemption
and create compliance difficulties. In any event, again, we believe
that the increased threshold mitigates any compliance difficulties
posed for such pipelines.

2. Non-Interstate Pipelines That Deliver More Than Ninety-Five Percent
of Volumes to Retail Customers

a. Posting NOPR
    116. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission proposed that major non-
interstate pipelines that deliver 95 percent of their volumes to end-
users would be exempt from the posting requirements and requested
comment on this proposal.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Posting NOPR at P 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
    117. Several commenters support an exemption for pipelines
delivering almost exclusively to end-users contending that it would not
result in a loss of significant market information.\203\ Indeed, some
commenters request that a proposed exemption be expanded to include
non-interstate pipelines that transport 80 percent of flows to end-
users.\204\ Calpine seeks to lower the end-use threshold from 95
percent to 90 percent and asserts that such pipelines do not have a
major impact on gas flow. Calpine contends that unforeseen outages of a
large gas-consuming facility could cause a non-interstate pipeline to
no longer be eligible for the exemption. Calpine acknowledges that this
possibility is lessened by averaging deliveries over a three-year
period as was proposed.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ Dow Chemical Comments at 2; Dow Pipeline Comments at 2-3;
Chevron Pipelines Comments at 23.
    \204\ ONEOK Gathering Companies Comments at 14-15; TPA Comments
at 46-47; Kinder Morgan Intrastate Comments at 22-23.
    \205\ Calpine Comments at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    118. AGA proposes to exempt any pipeline in which flows to non-end-
users amounted to less than 10 million MMBtu. AGA is concerned that
without its additional exemption, a pipeline that flowed more than the
delivery threshold of 10 million MMBtu but whose flows to non-end-users
were more than 500,000 MMBtu would be captured.\206\ Dow Chemical
requests a categorical exemption for non-interstate pipelines that are
owned or operated by end-users and that are used to transport natural
gas for use by such end-users.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ AGA Comments at 2.
    \207\ Dow Chemical Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    119. Duke maintains that gas consumed by an LDC in the normal
course of operations, such as fuel and lost-and-unaccounted for gas,
should be included in the gas deemed delivered directly to end-users
for purposes of this exemption.\208\ Duke contends that such gas
facilitates performance by an LDC of its core function and is not
pertinent to the United States wholesale market.\209\ Duke also argues
that deliveries by one LDC to another LDC should be considered
deliveries to another end-user for the purposes of the exemption.\210\
Duke reasons that such gas has left the interstate system.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ Duke Comments at 7; see also AGA Comments at 11.
    \209\ Duke Comments at 7.
    \210\ Id. at 7-8; see also AGA Comments at 13.
    \211\ Duke Comments at 8.

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

c. Commission Determination
    120. With one substantial modification, the Commission adopts the
exemption proposed in the Posting NOPR. Major non-interstate pipelines
that flow greater than 95 percent of their volumes directly to retail
customers (rather than all end-users) are exempted from the posting
requirements.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ Dow Intrastate requests clarification for its non-
interstate pipeline that can deliver both to a processing plant and
an end-user. It seeks to fit the non-interstate pipeline into one of
the exemptions. The non-interstate pipeline delivers directly into a
processing plant but can also deliver directly to an end-user.
According to Dow Intrastate, in those circumstances, a pipeline
could not qualify for the end-use exemption because 95 percent of
the gas does not go to an end-user, it is delivered to the
processing plant. It appears that the pipeline that Dow Intrastate
describes does not lie entirely upstream of a processing plant. If
the modified delivery point threshold adopted in this Final Rule
does not address Dow Intrastate's concern, it may file for a waiver
of the regulations and the Commission will consider the matter in
light of the facts presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    121. Recently, in Order No. 704-A, the Commission held that data
regarding transactions with consumers at retail would not significantly
assist us to fulfill our transparency responsibilities under section 23
of the NGA.\213\ There, we drew a distinction between a broad category
of end-use transactions and transactions that occur at retail. As we
discussed in that order, many end-use transactions have substantial
impact on wholesale energy markets.\214\ For these reasons, we will
define the exemption in the same terms described in Order No. 704-A and
exempt pipelines delivering 95 percent of their flow volumes under
retail transactions (i.e., bundled transactions through an LDC at a
state-approved tariff rate) to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ Order No. 704-A at P 40-43.
    \214\ Id. at P 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    122. In light of the increase in the delivery threshold from 10 to
50 million MMBtu, we do not adopt the proposal of AGA to further expand
this exemption. AGA proposes to exempt any pipeline in which flows to
non-end-users amounted to less than 10 million MMBtu. AGA is concerned
that without its additional exemption, a pipeline that flowed just more
than the delivery threshold of 10 million MMBtu but whose flows to non-
end-users were more than 500,000 MMBtu would be required to post.\215\
Because the Commission herein increases the delivery threshold proposed
in the Posting NOPR, AGA's concern is alleviated because such a non-
interstate pipeline would not be required to post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ AGA Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    123. Also, because of the increase in the delivery threshold, we
will not lower the threshold for this exemption to 80 percent as
requested by several commenters \216\ or to 90 percent as proposed by
Calpine. Lowering the retail delivery exemption to 80 or 90 percent
would allow some major non-interstate pipelines to avoid posting a
significant amount of receipts and deliveries that are not made to
consumers, which could result in the loss of a large amount of
information about the interstate natural gas market. Further, we
believe that commenters' concerns largely are addressed by the
increased delivery threshold of 50 million MMBtu and by the requirement
that the end-use percentages be determined on a three-year average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ ONEOK Gathering Companies Comments at 14-15; TPA Comments
at 46-47; Kinder Morgan Intrastate Comments at 22-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    124. We find Calpine's ``concern[] that the ninety-five (95%)
volume level is set too high to allow for unforeseen outages that
affect large gas-consuming facilities'' to be misplaced. Such outages
could result in gas being redirected away from an end-user to a
wholesale purchaser. This also could result in the pipeline delivering
more than 5 percent of its flows to non-end-users therefore triggering
the posting requirement. In such a circumstance, posting would be
properly required.
    125. In response to other comments, we clarify that volumes
transported from one LDC to another should not be deemed deliveries to
retail consumers for purposes of the end-user exemption.\217\ The
Commission will not exempt a non-interstate pipeline that delivers
solely into a single non-interstate pipeline as suggested by NGSA.\218\
NGSA reasons that the downstream, non-interstate pipeline would post
the flows at its receipt point. That may not be the case where the
downstream, non-interstate pipeline does not meet the delivery
threshold and is not required to post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Duke Comments at 7.
    \218\ NGSA Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    126. Natural gas consumed or utilized for operational reasons by
the posting pipeline (such as for fuel or lost-and-unaccounted for gas)
is deemed to be gas consumed ``at retail'' for purposes of determining
whether a pipeline fits within this exemption.
3. Non-Interstate Storage Providers
a. Posting NOPR
    127. In the Posting NOPR, the Commission sought further comment
from storage providers regarding the effect of the proposed rule on
their businesses. Specifically, the Commission asked for comment on
whether storage providers should provide data in aggregate form and
whether an individual storage facility loses negotiating strength when
its customers know the supply of available storage capacity.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ Posting NOPR at P 76-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
    128. Some commenters support the proposal.\220\ For example,
Calpine supports a daily posting requirement for storage providers,
otherwise ``[t]he supply chain would be incomplete.'' \221\ Calpine
contends that the information currently available about interstate
storage facilities is ``often too delayed or too aggregated to provide
effective daily flow information'' and information about non-interstate
storage providers is even less useful.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ Calpine Comments at 12.
    \221\ Id. at 13.
    \222\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    129. Storage providers generally object to the proposal, claiming,
for example, that the proposal is anti-competitive in nature,\223\ the
information is already available through other means,\224\ or that the
daily posting requirements would produce distorted aggregate data and
may yield inaccuracies.\225\ They oppose both (i) the posting of flow
information by storage providers who qualify as major non-interstate
pipelines, and; (ii) the posting by a non-interstate pipeline of flow
information at a receipt or delivery point that serves a storage
provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ Enstor Comments at 3-5; Dow Chemical Comments at 2.
    \224\ See Jefferson Island Comments at 4-6; NISKA Comments at 4-
5; Nisource Comments at 4-5; Williston Basin Comments at 16;
EnergySouth Comments at 2, 5.
    \225\ Nisource Comments at 5; Total Peaking Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    130. In response to the Commission's inquiry regarding the effect
of the proposal on a storage provider's negotiating position,
commenters warn that revealing their actual storage position would
cause them to lose negotiating strength,\226\ which could make the
storage business less profitable, discourage continued and new storage
services, lower storage supply and increase prices.\227\ As explained
by Enstor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ Williston Basin Comments at 17.
    \227\ EnergySouth Comments at 13.

    A rule that requires [a storage provider] to reveal all daily
injections and withdrawals into and out of each of its storage
facilities would, in effect, reveal to the world what [its] storage
position is on each day in each such storage facility.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ Enstor Comments at 6 n. 22; see also EnergySouth Comments
at 2 and 11; Jefferson Island Comments at 7-8; NISKA Comments at 6-
8; Nisource Comments at 5 and 7-8; Williston Basin Comments at 17;
Chevron Pipelines Comments at 32; Enstor Reply Comments at 10.

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

    131. Similarly, EnergySouth comments that revealing such
competitively-sensitive information about individual facilities would
degrade storage providers' competitive abilities and provide ``one-
sided information advantage'' to storage purchasers.\229\ This result,
storage providers allege, would run contrary to section 23(a)(1) of the
NGA, which requires the Commission to facilitate price transparency
``having due regard for * * * fair competition'' among other
goals.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ EnergySouth Comments at 2, 11-12; see also EnergySouth
Reply Comments at 1-2.
    \230\ Section 23(a)(1) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(1) (2000
& Supp. V 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    132. Commenters also claim that the release of flow data from
individual storage facilities could lead to increased prices.\231\ For
instance, NiSource asserts that the posting of regionally specific
storage volumes could result in artificially high prices, particularly
where storage assets are operated on an integrated basis.\232\ Further,
commenters suggest that flow information from storage providers would
not be useful to market participants or the Commission.\233\ National
Fuel Supply comments that ``information about daily flows at each
individual field has only operational, not commercial, significance,
and its disclosure would place a burden on National Fuel Supply and
other storage providers without facilitating price transparency.''
\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ See Chevron Pipelines Comments at 32; EnergySouth Comments
at 2, 13; Nisource Comments at 9.
    \232\ Nisource Comments at 9.
    \233\ Total Peaking Comments at 11; National Fuel Supply
Comments at 6; Williston Basin Reply Comments at 7.
    \234\ National Fuel Supply Comments at 6; National Fuel Supply
Reply Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    133. Several commenters state that the posting for storage
providers should be done on an aggregated basis rather than on a
facility-by-facility basis.\235\ Otherwise, NiSource reasons, market
participants may use daily storage data to artificially increase
natural gas prices when they believe demand is rising.\236\ Others
contend that an aggregated posting by storage providers should parallel
the postings of interstate storage providers. According to Enstor, many
interstate natural gas pipelines post one aggregated, system-wide
storage capacity number for all of their storage fields, regardless of
the number of storage facilities.\237\ Enstor explains that if the
Commission deems it necessary to require non-interstate storage
providers to post daily storage capacity and withdrawal and injection
capacities, the Commission should require all storage providers to
report this information by specific location rather than by the
entirety of their systems.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ See Enstor Comments at 5; Nisource Comments at 5;
EnergySouth Comments at 10-11; Bentek Comments at 10; Comments of
National Fuel Supply at 6.
    \236\ NiSource Comments at 5.
    \237\ Enstor Comments at 8.
    \238\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    134. Some commenters request clarification regarding possible
storage provider postings. PG&E requests that the Commission clarify
that by requiring storage providers to post ``capacity'' information,
it would not be requiring storage providers to post inventory
data.\239\ PG&E does not object to posting information concerning
injections into and withdrawals from its storage facilities on an
aggregated basis.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ PG&E Comments at 7; NISKA Comments at 7.
    \240\ PG&E Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    135. Commenters propose different ways to limit storage provider
posting obligations to address the above concerns. They suggest that
the Commission exempt storage providers providing storage service under
section 311 of the NGPA under market-based-rates \241\ or allow storage
providers to post such information on a confidential, non-public
basis.\242\ EnergySouth comments that ``[m]arket-based rate storage
providers lacking market power should be regulated under less intrusive
gas market transparency rules, if under any such rules, than pipelines
providing transportation services.'' \243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ See Chevron Pipelines Comments at 29; Jefferson Island
Comments at 10; NISKA Comments at 4; see also Enstor Comments at 7
(stating that the Commission should put all storage providers on the
same playing field and not exempt some operators from posting
information because it is inherently not fair to entities taking on
the ``additional burden'').
    \242\ See PG&E Comments at 7; NISKA Comments at 5; Chevron
Pipelines Comments at 30-31.
    \243\ EnergySouth Reply Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    136. In response to the comments received, the Commission will
exempt non-interstate storage providers from the requirement to post
information on the Internet.\244\ As discussed above, the Commission
and other market observers would benefit substantially by increased
transparency regarding the flow of natural gas on major non-interstate
pipelines. We agree, however, with certain commenters that the
Commission's transparency goals may not be substantially enhanced by a
requirement that non-interstate storage providers separately post flow
information. The Commission here does not require the posting of
information regarding natural gas storage inventories for the same
reason that it does not seek production information. The focus of the
Final Rule is on the flow, not strictly the supply, of natural gas
within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ See new section 284.14(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    137. Regarding flows into and out of non-interstate storage
providers, we determine that relevant information is already captured
by the requirements imposed on non-interstate pipelines in the
promulgated regulations. That is, a major non-interstate pipeline with
a receipt or delivery point at a connection with a storage provider is
required to post scheduled flow data if the point has a design capacity
greater than 15,000 MMBtu per day. We believe that this posting will be
sufficient to capture relevant flow information into and out of storage
facilities. Further, as major non-interstate pipelines are already
required by this Final Rule to post data for such points, requiring
similar postings by storage providers would be duplicative and unduly
burdensome.
    138. We disagree with the concerns raised by certain non-interstate
storage provider commenters regarding competitive issues related to the
posting of flow data. First, the Final Rule does not require storage
providers to post any information. Rather, the information relating to
flows into and out of storage facilities that the Commission requires
to be posted is in the control of interconnected non-interstate
pipelines. Second, the Commission is not requiring the posting of
inventory or storage capacity data. Under these circumstances, we do
not believe that the postings required in this Final Rule would have
any deleterious effect on competition.
4. Other Exemptions and Safe Harbor
a. Posting NOPR
    139. While the Posting NOPR did not specifically suggest additional
exemptions from the proposed posting requirements, it solicited
comments from interested entities regarding all aspects of the rule.
b. Comments
    140. Cranberry Pipeline requests an exemption for intrastate
pipelines, such as itself, with a relatively small Web-like
configuration rather than a long-line system. Furthermore, Cranberry
Pipeline requests an exemption for intrastate pipelines that operate in
concentrated and transparent markets (such as Appalachia) in which
supply

and demand information is readily available.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ Cranberry Pipeline Comments at 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    141. Freeport requests that the Commission clarify that the
definition of ``major non-interstate pipeline'' does not include
facilities authorized pursuant to section 3 of the NGA that do not
render stand-alone transportation service.\246\ Freeport asserts that
because its sendout pipeline is more akin to a production facility than
to a ``major non-interstate pipeline,'' it should not be subject to a
posting requirement.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ Freeport Comments at 1.
    \247\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    142. SEMCO urges the Commission to exempt major non-interstate
pipelines that sell and transport natural gas in the Alaska natural gas
market because there are no market hubs in Alaska.\248\ For its part,
Marathon contends that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over
Alaskan pipelines and explains that natural gas pipeline activities in
Alaska do not impact interstate commerce.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ SEMCO Comments at 4-5.
    \249\ Marathon Comments at 2-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    143. Several commenters advocate for a safe harbor provision for
good faith compliance.\250\ TPA argues in favor of a safe harbor
provision.\251\ ONEOK Gathering advocates for ``safe harbor''
provisions to ensure upstream pipelines are not unfairly punished if
posted capacities are based on reasonable assumptions about downstream
pressures that differ from actual pressures.\252\ OGT explains that
capacity on upstream pipelines varies due to the pressures of
downstream pipelines.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ AGA Comments at 18; Atmos Comments at 13; Copano Energy
Comments at 12.
    \251\ TPA Comments at 33; Crosstex Comments at 33.
    \252\ ONEOK Gathering Comments at 18.
    \253\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    144. In contrast, Royalty Owners state that any Final Rule should
not contain a safe harbor contending that the Commission should be able
to accommodate the few instances of honest mistakes--``Penalties are in
place for a reason.'' \254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ Royalty Owners Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    145. AGA requests that distribution companies with Commission-
approved service area determinations under section 7(f) of the NGA be
excluded from the Final Rule, as such companies are considered
``natural gas companies'' under section (2)(6) of the NGA.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ AGA Comments at 6; Louisville Gas and Electric Co.
Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    146. Several commenters contend that the Commission should clarify
that Hinshaw pipelines are not subject to the posting requirements for
major, non-interstate pipelines. As explained by PSCo, a Hinshaw
pipeline should not fall within the definition of ``major, non-
interstate pipeline'' under the proposed regulation.\256\ PSCo also
contends that flow information from a Hinshaw pipeline would not be
useful in meeting the Commission's goals for the pipeline posting
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ PSCo Comments at 3-4; see also AGA Comments at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    147. The Commission will not provide a separate exemption for
pipelines in ``concentrated and transparent markets'' as requested by
Cranberry Pipeline.\257\ The increase in the threshold for the
definition of major non-interstate pipelines should accommodate
Cranberry Pipeline's request for an exemption for ``smaller''
pipelines. It would be extremely difficult to create a test for what is
a ``concentrated and transparent'' market. Such a test would create an
undue burden on a pipeline and an unnecessary administrative burden on
the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ Cranberry Pipeline describes these types of entities as
intrastate pipelines that operate in concentrated and transparent
markets (such as Appalachia) in which supply and demand information
is readily available. Cranberry Pipeline Comments at 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    148. Likewise, we decline to provide a separate exemption for
sendout pipelines covered under section 3 of the NGA as requested by
Freeport LNG. The flow information from such pipelines, if they were to
meet the 50 million MMBtu delivery threshold, would provide valuable
information to market participants, market observers and the
Commission. Peak sendout at liquefied natural gas facilities may
represent material volumes of natural gas within a region or trading
location and, therefore, may significantly explain changes in prices.
    149. Similar reasoning applies to our decision not to categorically
exclude Hinshaw pipelines or LDCs operating under a section 7(f)
service area determination from the posting requirements in this Final
Rule. Hinshaw pipelines and entities that serve an interstate service
area under NGA section 7(f) that meet or exceed the 50 million MMBtu
delivery threshold are sizeable entities and flows on these pipelines
may have substantial effect on the natural gas market, especially
regionally.
    150. However, we will not impose the requirements of the Final Rule
on non-interstate pipelines in Alaska. At this time, such pipelines do
not have a sufficiently significant impact on the interstate natural
gas market so as to warrant their inclusion in the Final Rule.
    151. The Commission will not adopt a ``safe harbor'' for posting.
The Commission articulated a safe harbor in the Policy Statement on
Price Indices,\258\ which grants a data provider that adopts certain
reporting standards a rebuttable presumption that data submitted to
index developers is accurate, timely, and submitted in good faith.
However, a similar perpetual safe harbor is not warranted regarding the
posting requirements set forth in this Final Rule. The Policy Statement
on Price Indices sets forth standards that data providers could choose
to adopt should they voluntarily elect to provide data to price index
developers. One goal of the Policy Statement on Price Indices was to
``encourage [industry participants] voluntarily to report energy
transactions to providers or price indices.'' The safe harbor that we
adopted in the Policy Statement on Price Indices was a direct extension
of this policy goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets;
Policy Statement on Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, 104 FERC
] 61,121 (2003), clarified, 109 FERC ] 61,184 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    152. The posting requirements set forth in this Final Rule are
mandatory posting requirements adopted consistent with the directives
of EPAct 2005, not the voluntary reporting of price data to an index
developer. There is no policy need to provide an incentive for posting
the information required in this Final Rule similar to the
encouragement to reporting price data to index developers. Other
mandatory requirements, such as the filing of FERC Form No. 2, do not
include such a safe harbor. For this reason, we are not persuaded that
a perpetual safe harbor is warranted.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ Recently, in Order No. 704-A, the Commission declined to
adopt a perpetual safe harbor for the annual reporting requirement
for Form No. 552. FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,275 at P 69. While we did
adopt a one-year safe harbor for 2009 filings of Form No. 552, we
decline to do so here. As discussed below, interstate pipelines will
be required to comply with the promulgated posting requirements
within 60 days of the publication of this Final Rule in the Federal
Register. Major non-interstate pipelines must comply within 150 days
of publication. We are confident that pipelines subject to this
Final Rule will be able to comply with the new regulations in a
timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Posting of No-Notice Service Information by Interstate Pipelines

1. Posting NOPR
    153. The Posting NOPR proposed to require interstate natural gas
pipelines to post actual flow information within 24 hours of the close
of the gas day on

which it flowed.\260\ This proposed requirement, the Commission stated,
would disseminate information about no-notice service for interstate
pipelines.\261\ The Commission observed that posting of actual flow
information could fill the gap between scheduled and actual flows and
allow market observers to ascribe price behavior with physical changes
in flows, particularly in the northern tier of the country where no-
notice service is more prevalent.\262\ The Posting NOPR also observed
that posting of actual flow information could reduce the opportunities
for market participants to exploit non-public flow information.\263\ We
sought comments about implementation of the requirement to post actual
flows on interstate natural gas pipelines in order to better understand
the costs and benefits of such posting.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ Posting NOPR at P 4.
    \261\ Id. at P 41.
    \262\ Id.
    \263\ Id. at P 42.
    \264\ Id. at P 2, 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments

    154. Several commenters oppose the requirement that interstate
pipelines post actual flow information as too burdensome in relation to
the minimal information that would be gleaned. For example, INGAA
contends that information regarding actual flows does not further
market transparency because they do not reflect ongoing market
dynamics; rather they trace to transactions that have already been
completed.\265\ Further, according to INGAA, actual flows are
independent of the contract paths that INGAA asserts define market
transactions.\266\ Several commenters contend, without specificity,
that the posting of actual flows will be costly.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ INGAA Comments at 12; see also Chevron Pipelines Comments
at 12-13.
    \266\ INGAA Comments at 13.
    \267\ See, e.g., id. at 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    155. Several commenters argue that the current posting of scheduled
volume information provides sufficient transparency and there is no
evidence that the posting of actual flows would increase
transparency.\268\ Spectra states that scheduled volumes postings
contain better and more timely data for the market than actual flow
postings would contain.\269\ Spectra also points out that the market
currently uses scheduled volume data to make decisions, and there is no
evidence that the market is currently functioning in any way other than
efficiently.\270\ National Fuel Supply states that no-notice volumes
are not important to understanding the market and ``the Commission
should not be concerned that information about no-notice volumes could
be exploited in a manipulative or discriminatory manner.'' \271\
Similarly, Kinder Morgan Interstate maintains that the Commission
offers no support that the posting of no-notice activity would prevent
misconduct.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ Id. at 7; National Fuel Supply Comments at 4; Spectra
Comments at 8; Williston Basin Comments at 3-5.
    \269\ Spectra Comments at 7; see also NiSource Comments at 5.
    \270\ Spectra Comments at 8.
    \271\ National Fuel Supply Comments at 4-5.
    \272\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    156. Several commenters argue that the posting of actual flow
information could confuse market participants due, for instance, to
timing differences between when the original imbalances occur and when
they are cleared.\273\ Commenters object to including actual flow
information because it would include operational flows, such as flows
reflecting maintenance activities, line pack management, blending and
balancing, which are not relevant to the price formation process.\274\
Kinder Morgan Interstate contends that no-notice activity is not useful
in establishing future prices and does not reflect current market
conditions; thus, it would not enhance price transparency.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ Williston Basin Comments at 3-5.
    \274\ Id. at 5-7; Chevron Pipelines Comments at 16; Total
Peaking Comments at 12.
    \275\ Kinder Morgan Interstate Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    157. On the other hand, some commenters support the posting of
actual flow information by interstate pipelines. Calpine asserts that
actual daily flow information would allow an assessment of how
accurately scheduled volumes reflect the actual volumes associated with
activities in the real-time market, which ``is especially critical in
times of constraints caused by unplanned events or outages.'' \276\
APGA supports posting of actual flow volume as it would provide market
observers an important ``missing piece of the puzzle'' to understand
what is transpiring in the market, both operationally and as to supply
and demand fundamentals.\277\ The New York PSC supports obtaining
actual flows from not just interstate pipelines, but also intrastate
pipelines, as the data would provide market participants with increased
understanding of daily trends in natural gas markets, including
regional conditions and pipeline capacity available to resolve regional
supply/demand imbalances, especially during peak demand or emergency
conditions.\278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ Calpine Comments at 4.
    \277\ APGA Comments at 3-4.
    \278\ New York PSC Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    158. Bentek's comments suggest that the posting of actual volumes
is one option to obtain data to ensure that no-notice service is
transparent on interstate pipelines, but, alternatively, proposed that
market observers rely on publication of no-notice volumes.\279\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ Bentek Comments at 3-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    159. Several commenters respond specifically to the Posting NOPR's
inquiry as to whether no-notice activity is reflected in trading
activity or storage activity. Chevron Pipelines responds that the only
no-notice activity that would equate to trading activity is storage
injections.\280\ Kinder Morgan Interstate contends that no-notice
activity on their pipelines generally reflect storage withdrawals
because the trading activity associated with storage withdrawals would
have already occurred when the gas was purchased and injected into
storage.\281\ Williston Basin states that on its system no-notice
volumes are exclusively associated with storage activity.\282\ Chevron
Pipelines describe no-notice service as commonly associated with two
types of transactions: Storage injections/withdrawals and imbalance
management, including balancing under Operating Balancing
Agreements.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ Chevron Pipelines Comments at 17.
    \281\ Kinder Morgan Interstate Comments at 9.
    \282\ Id.
    \283\ Chevron Pipelines Comments at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    160. While the Commission will not require interstate natural gas
pipelines to post information regarding all actual flows, this Final
Rule requires interstate natural gas pipelines to post the volumes of
no-notice service flows \284\ at each receipt and delivery point before
11:30 a.m. central clock time (the timely cycle under NAESB Nomination
Standard 1.32) three days after the day of gas flow.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ See 18 CFR 284.7(a)(4) (requiring pipelines to provide no-
notice service).
    \285\ Total Peaking, Venice Gathering, and DCP Midstream sought
in this proceeding to exempt specific interstate natural gas
pipelines from the existing posting requirement. We believe the
current posting requirements on interstate pipelines should not be
reduced at this time and do not adopt any exemptions to that
requirement. As always, interstate pipelines may request a waiver
from the requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    161. The Commission requires an interstate pipeline to provide no-
notice service if such service was provided as of the effective date of
Order No. 636.\286\ Accordingly, firm shippers that receive no-notice
service can receive delivery of

gas on demand up to their firm entitlements on a daily basis without
incurring daily balancing and scheduling penalties. No-notice service
is usually used by shippers when gas load is much higher than has been
nominated and scheduled the previous day (due, perhaps, to
unanticipated cold or hot temperatures). However, while Order No. 636
and its progeny mandated the adoption of no-notice service, the
Commission has previously not required Internet posting of no-notice
volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \286\ See Order No. 636-A at p. 30,574.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    162. The absence of reporting of no-notice service means that the
market cannot see large and unexpected increases in gas demand and
therefore cannot understand price formation during such occasions.
Information on no-notice volumes is valuable even posted after the no-
notice gas flows because it allows market participants and other market
observers to understand the historical patterns of flows and will
enable them to better predict future no-notice flows. Requiring
interstate pipelines to post no-notice volumes will meet the goals of
the Commission with less of a burden on interstate natural gas
pipelines than full posting of actual flows.
    163. The posting of no-notice service will be of particular
importance in the northern tier of the country during extreme weather
conditions. As we pointed out in the Posting NOPR, the gap between
scheduled and actual flows occurs most commonly in this region of the
country where a pipeline serves a local distribution company with
significant space heating demand. In such circumstances, market
observers find it more difficult to ascribe price behavior to physical
changes in flows. Further, as observed by NGSA, ``[o]n heating season
peak days or days with wide intra-day weather swings, no-notice volumes
can be significant; therefore, scheduled volumes are not a proxy for
physical flow and, thus, do not necessarily provide an accurate picture
of underlying market fundamentals.'' \287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ NGSA Comments on the Initial NOPR at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    164. The Commission has received many hotline and other informal
calls from shippers with complaints about available service on
interstate pipelines. Often, callers indicate confusion regarding
discrepancies in pipeline postings of scheduled volumes that indicate
that capacity should be available and a pipeline's refusal to provide
same-day service on the grounds that there is no capacity available.
This lack of available capacity is very often due to the use of no-
notice service. Posting information about no-notice service, even after
the fact, will make availability on interstate natural gas pipelines
more transparent, consistent with section 23 of the NGA.\288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ Section 23(a)(2) of the NGA; 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2) (2000
& Supp. V 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    165. Public posting of no-notice service information could also
prevent other forms of misconduct with direct effects on natural gas in
interstate commerce. The lack of public flow information could provide
the opportunity for parties to engage in manipulative or unduly
discriminatory behavior. By making major non-interstate pipeline flow
information public, such transparency could discourage market
participants from engaging in such activities. Therefore, we disagree
with commenters that suggest that transparency will not be enhanced via
the posting of no-notice flows.
    166. We believe this requirement to post no-notice service
information would not be unduly burdensome for interstate pipelines. An
interstate natural gas pipeline should already have information on the
no-notice service it provides. Additionally, pipelines already have the
existing information technology (i.e., Internet Web sites) for posting
such information. We further reduce the posting burden for posting no-
notice service by requiring such posts to occur within seventy-two
hours after the applicable gas day. This compares to a twenty-four hour
deadline as originally suggested in the Posting NOPR.

VI. Effective Date of the Final Rule and Compliance Deadlines

    167. The Final Rule will become effective 30 days following
publication in the Federal Register. Interstate pipelines subject to
these new posting requirements must comply with the regulations
promulgated herein no later than 60 days following such publication.
Interstate pipelines already have Internet Web sites in place and
likely have ready means in-place to capture data necessary to post
information regarding no-notice service. Under these circumstances, we
believe that a 60-day deadline is sufficient time for all interstate
pipelines to comply with the regulations.
    168. While some major non-interstate pipelines have Web sites and
data collection abilities similar to interstate pipelines, others may
need additional time to put procedures in place to comply with the
instant posting requirements. Therefore, we will give major non-
interstate pipelines 150 days following publication of this Final Rule
to come into compliance with the new regulations. This time will allow
them sufficient time to update their information technology systems and
establish an Internet Web site for the postings. This time frame for
compliance will allow them to complete the current heating season
without the need to implement new posting procedures while ensuring
that new postings are available prior to the next heating season. While
one commenter, Kinder Morgan Intrastate, estimated it would take one
year ``to complete the necessary IT upgrades and data reorganization,''
\289\ that estimate assumed a requirement for obtaining and posting
both actual flows and scheduled volumes on both mainline segments and
on receipt and delivery points. As the regulations promulgated here do
not require obtaining and posting actual flows or obtaining scheduled
volumes from segments, Kinder Morgan Intrastate's estimate is
excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ Kinder Morgan Intrastate at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Information Collection Statement

    169. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
it to approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (information
collection) requirements imposed by an agency.\290\ In this Final Rule,
the Commission will set forth two requirements for the posting or
collection of information, one for interstate and one for major non-
interstate pipelines.\291\ The Commission has submitted notification of
these proposed information collection requirements to OMB for its
review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
    \291\ The OMB regulations cover both the collection of
information and the posting of information. 5 CFR 1320.3(c). Thus,
the proposal to post information would create an information
collection burden.
    \292\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    170. The requirement for interstate natural gas pipelines to post
information about no-notice service, would impose an additional
information collection burden on interstate natural gas pipelines. The
other requirement for major non-interstate pipelines to post scheduled
volume information would impose an additional information collection
burden on major non-interstate pipelines. Interstate and major non-
interstate pipelines already collect this information, but do not
necessarily post it. Certain non-interstate pipelines have asserted in
comments on the Posting NOPR that costs would be quite

high if additional equipment were needed to meet quick posting
deadlines. However, given that this information is used in their
business, the Commission still believes that the burden that would be
imposed by this proposed requirement is largely for the collection and
posting of this information in the required format.\293\ Further,
certain non-interstate pipelines provide burden estimates based on
posting for all receipt and delivery points and by mainline segment and
based on measuring and posting actual flow information. These estimates
are too high because, as explained in this preamble, the Commission
will not require posting at mainline segments and does not require
posting at all receipt and delivery points, rather it will require
posting at each receipt and delivery point that has a design capacity
greater than 15,000 MMBtu/day. Finally, the Commission has reduced the
number of non-interstate pipelines that will be required to post by
raising the delivery threshold used to define a major non-interstate
pipeline from 10 million MMBtu per year to 50 million MMBtu per year in
deliveries. For interstate natural gas pipelines, the Commission
reduced the burden by not requiring the posting of actual flow
information; instead, the Commission will require that interstate
natural gas pipelines post information on no-notice transportation.
Elsewhere in this preamble, the Commission has further addressed
comments regarding the burden of the requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ See 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2) (``The time, effort, and financial
resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that
would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their
activities (e.g., in compiling and maintaining business records)
will be excluded from the ``burden'' if the agency demonstrates that
the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to
comply are usual and customary.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    171. OMB regulations require OMB to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission
submitted notification of this rule to OMB.
Public Reporting Burden
    The start-up and annual burden estimates for complying with this
Final Rule are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of       Estimated                       Estimated
                                     Number of    daily postings   annual burden   Total annual      start-up
         Data collection            respondents         per          hours per     hours for all    burden per
                                                    respondent      respondent      respondents     respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 284 FERC-551...............
Major Non-Interstate Pipeline                 80               2             365          29,200              40
 Postings.......................
Additional Interstate Natural                101               1             183          18,433               8
 Gas Pipeline Postings..........
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................             181  ..............  ..............          47,633  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annual hours for collection (including recordkeeping) for
all respondents is estimated to be 47,633 hours.
    Information Posting Costs: The average annualized cost for each
respondent is projected to be the following (savings in parenthesis):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Annualized
                                                                     capital/
                                                                   startup costs   Annual costs     Annualized
                                                                     (10 year                       costs total
                                                                   amortization)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-551........................................................
Major Non-Interstate Pipeline Postings..........................            $142         $30,000         $30,142
Additional Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Postings.............               0           5,000           5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

VIII. Environmental Analysis

    172. 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.\294\ The
actions taken here fall within categorical exclusions in the
Commission's regulations for information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and transportation of natural
gas that require no construction of facilities.\295\ Therefore, an
environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared in
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \294\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \295\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5) and (a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    173. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \296\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA requires consideration

of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a
proposed rule and that minimize any significant economic impact on such
entities. The RFA does not, however, mandate any particular outcome in
a rulemaking. At a minimum, agencies are to consider the following
alternatives: Establishment of different compliance or reporting
requirements for small entities or timetables that take into account
the resources available to small entities; clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting
requirements for small entities; use of performance rather than design
standards; and exemption for certain or all small entities from
coverage of the rule, in whole or in part. The proposal to require
daily postings by interstate and non-interstate pipelines will not
impact small entities. Natural gas pipelines are classified under NAICS
code, 486210, Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.\297\ A natural
gas pipeline is considered a small entity for the purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act if its average annual receipts are less than
$6.5 million.\298\ The Commission does not believe that any pipeline
that would be required to post under the proposal in this NOPR has
receipts less than $6.5 million. Thus, the daily posting proposal will
not impact small entities. In this Final Rule, the Commission will
reduce the number of major non-interstate pipelines that will be
subject to the posting requirements by reducing the delivery threshold
from 10 million MMBtu/year to 50 million MMBtu/year. Further, the
Commission as explained above considered alternatives for obtaining and
disseminating daily the information on scheduled volumes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \297\ This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged
in the pipeline transportation of natural gas from processing plants
to local distribution systems. 2002 North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) Definitions, http://www.census.gov/
epcd/naics02/def/ND486210.HTM.
    \298\ See U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small
Business Size Standards, http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/
documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf (effective July 31,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Document Availability

    174. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission will provide all interested
persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://
www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
    175. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    176. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
XI. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    177. These regulations are effective January 2, 2009. The
Commission will determine, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule
[is or is not] a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

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

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends 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 OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES

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

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

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

Sec.  284.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (d) Major non-interstate pipeline means a pipeline that:
    (1) Is not a ``natural gas company'' under section 1 of the Natural
Gas Act; and
    (2) Delivers annually more than fifty (50) million MMBtu (million
British thermal units) of natural gas measured in average deliveries
for the previous three calendar years.

0
3. In Sec.  284.13(d), revise the heading and add two sentences to the
end of paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  284.13  Reporting requirements for interstate pipelines.

* * * * *
    (d) Capacity and flow information. (1) An interstate pipeline must
also provide information about the volumes of no-notice transportation
provided pursuant to Sec.  284.7(a)(4). This information must be posted
at each receipt and delivery point before 11:30 a.m. central clock time
three days after the day of gas flow.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 284.14 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) Daily posting requirement. A major non-interstate pipeline must
provide on a daily basis on an Internet Web site and in downloadable
file formats equal and timely access to information relevant to the
design capacity of each receipt or delivery point that has a design
capacity equal to or greater than 15,000 MMBtu/day and the amount
scheduled at each such point whenever capacity is scheduled. For each
such point on its system, a major non-interstate pipeline must provide
the following information: Transportation Service Provider Name,
Posting Date, Posting Time, Nomination Cycle, Location Name, Additional
Location Information if Needed to Distinguish Between Points, Location
Purpose Description (Receipt, Delivery, or Bilateral), Design Capacity,
Scheduled Volume, Available Capacity, and Measurement Unit (Dth, MMBtu,
or MCf). The information in this subsection must remain posted for a
period of one year.
    (b) Exemptions to daily posting requirement. The following
categories of major non-interstate pipelines are exempt from the
posting requirement of Sec.  284.14(a):
    (1) Those that fall entirely upstream of a processing, treatment,
or dehydration plant;
    (2) Those that deliver more than 95 percent of the natural gas
volumes they flow directly to retail end-users as measured by average
deliveries over the preceding three calendar years; and,
    (3) Storage providers.

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

Appendix A: List of Commenters and Abbreviations

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Commenter                                              Abbreviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Alliance Pipeline L.P....................  Alliance
2. American Gas Association.................  AGA
3. American Public Gas Association..........  APGA
4. Atmos Pipeline--Texas....................  Atmos
5. Bear Paw Energy LLC and Oneok Field        ONEOK Gathering Companies
 Services Company LLC.
6. BENTEK Energy, LLC.......................  Bentek
7. Bridgeline Holdings, L.P., Chevron         Chevron Pipelines or CVX Pipelines
 Midstream Pipeline LLC, Chevron Keystone
 Gas Storage, LLC, Sabine Pipe Line LLC, and
 Chandeleur Pipe Line Company.
8. Calpine Corporation......................  Calpine
9. Copano Energy, LLC.......................  Copano Energy
10. Cranberry Pipeline Corporation..........  Cranberry Pipeline
11. Crosstex Energy Services, LP............  Crosstex
12. DCP Midstream, LLC......................  DCP Midstream
13. Dow Chemical Company....................  Dow Chemical
14. Dow Interstate Gas Company..............  Dow Interstate
15. Dow Pipeline Company....................  Dow Pipeline
16. EnergySouth, Inc........................  EnergySouth
17. Duke Energy Corporation.................  Duke
18. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc............  Enbridge
19. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc..............  Encana
20. Enstor Operating Company, LLC...........  Enstor
21. EOG Resources, Inc., Pecan Pipeline       EOG Resources
 Company, and Pecan Pipeline (North Dakota),
 Inc.
22. Gas Processors Association..............  Gas Processors
23. Freeport LNG Development, L.P...........  Freeport
24. Independent Petroleum Association of      IPAA
 America.
25. Interstate Natural Gas Association of     INGAA
 America.
26. Jefferson Island Storage & Hub, LLC.....  Jefferson
27. Kinder Morgan Interstate Pipelines......  Kinder Morgan Interstate
28. Kinder Morgan Texas Intrastate Pipeline   Kinder Morgan Intrastate
 Group.
29. LaGrange Acquisition L.P................  LaGrange
30. Liberty Gas Storage, LLC................  Liberty Gas Storage
31. Louisville Gas and Electric Company.....  Louisville Gas and Electric
32. Marathon Oil Company....................  Marathon
33. National Association of Royalty Owners..  Royalty Owners
34. National Fuel Gas Distribution            National Fuel Distribution
 Corporation.
35. National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation....  National Fuel Supply
36. Natural Gas Supply Association..........  NGSA
37. New York Public Service Commission......  New York PSC
38. NISKA Gas Storage LLC...................  NISKA
39. NiSource Gas Transmission & Storage       NiSource
 Companies.
40. NorthWestern Energy Corporation.........  NorthWestern
41. Oklahoma Corporation Commission.........  Oklahoma Corporation Commission
42. Oneok Gas Transportation, LLC, and Oneck  ONEOK Gathering
 Westex Transmission, LLC.
43. Pacific Gas & Electric Company..........  PG&E
44. Process Gas Consumers Group.............  PGC
45. Public Service Company of Colorado......  PSCo
46. Railroad Commission of Texas............  Railroad Commission of Texas
47. Regency Energy Partnership..............  Regency
48. Ryan Cole...............................  Ryan Cole
49. SEMCO Energy Gas Company, Enstar Natural  SEMCO
 Gas Company, and Alaska Pipeline Company.
50. Shell Offshore Inc......................  Shell
51. SPECTRA Energy Transmission, LLC and      Spectra
 Spectra Energy Partners, LP.
52. Texas Independent Producers and Royalty   TIPRO
 Owners.
53. Texas Pipeline Association..............  TPA
54. Total Peaking Services, LLC.............  Total Peaking
55. Venice Gathering System, LLC............  Venice Gathering
56. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline       Williston Basin
 Company.
57. Yates Petroleum Corporation and Agave     Yates
 Energy Corporation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-28097 Filed 12-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14785-14787]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06995]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0094; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace; Tulsa, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class D airspace designated
as an extension at Tulsa Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport, Tulsa, OK. The FAA is
proposing this action as a result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Glenpool VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)
navigational aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON)
Program and the cancellation of the associated instrument procedures.
The geographic coordinates also would be amended, and an editorial
change would be made removing the airport name in the airspace
designation, and removing the city name from the airport designation.
Another editorial change would be made to the legal description
replacing ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement''.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2018-0094; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-4, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is

also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order
7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of 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
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 would amend Class D airspace at Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport,
Tulsa, OK, to support instrument flight rule operations.

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 and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0094/
Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-4.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. 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/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 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class D airspace extending
upward from the surface to and including 3,100 feet MSL within a 4-mile
radius of Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport, and within 1.0 miles each
side of the 190[deg] radial from the airport RWY 01L-LOC extending from
the 4-mile radius to 4.1 miles south of the airport (reduced from 1.3
miles each side of the 350[deg] radial of the Glenpool VOR extending
from the 4-mile radius to 4.7 miles south of the airport). This action
is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Glenpool VOR as part of
the VOR MON Program and cancellation of the associated instrument
procedures.
    This action also adjusts the geographic coordinates of the airport
to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. Additionally,
this action would make an editorial change to the Class D airspace
legal description replacing ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart
Supplement.''
    Also, an editorial change would be made removing the airport name
from the airspace designation, and removing the word ``Tulsa'' from the
airport name, to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures
for Handling Airspace Matters, dated October 12, 2017.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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 that this 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.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW OK D Tulsa, OK [Amended]

Richard Lloyd Jones Jr., OK
    (Lat. 36[deg]02'23'' N, long. 95[deg]59'05'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,100 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Richard Lloyd Jones Jr.
Airport, and within 1.0 miles each side of the 190[deg] bearing from
the Richard Lloyd Jones Jr., Airport, RWY 01L-LOC from the 4.0 mile
radius to 4.1 miles south of the airport, excluding that airspace
within the Tulsa International Airport, OK, Class C airspace area.
This Class D airspace is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 28, 2018.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-06995 Filed 4-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 169 (Monday, August 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53822-53823]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2019-N-3657; FDA-2019-N-6085; FDA-2017-N-6381; FDA-
2017-N-0084; FDA-2013-N-0731; FDA-2019-N-5971; FDA-2014-N-1021; and
FDA-2019-N-3018]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approvals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of
information collections that have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a list of FDA information
collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control
number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information
collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements
for the information collections are available on the internet at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

        Table 1--List of Information Collections Approved by OMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            OMB control    Date approval
           Title of collection                number          expires
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accreditation Scheme for Conformity            0910-0889       6/30/2023
 Assessment Pilot Program...............
General Administrative Practice and            0910-0191       7/31/2023
 Procedures.............................
Records and Reports Concerning                 0910-0284       7/31/2023
 Experience With Approved New Animal
 Drugs..................................
Adverse Event Program for Medical              0910-0471       7/31/2023
 Devices (Medical Product Safety Network
Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and         0910-0543       7/31/2023
 Tissue-Based Products: Establishment
 Registration and Listing; Eligibility
 Determination for Donors; and Current
 Good Tissue Practice...................
Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of          0910-0681       7/31/2023
 Transfusion-Transmitted of Infection in
 Whole Blood and Blood Components;
 Agency Guidance........................
Food Labeling; Gluten-Free Labeling of         0910-0817       8/31/2023
 Fermented or Hydrolyzed Foods..........

Healthcare Provider Perception of Boxed        0910-0890       8/31/2023
 Warning Information Survey.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: August 24, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-19092 Filed 8-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P