[Federal Register: July 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 135)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38757-38767]
[DOCID:fr16jy07-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 38 and 284

[Docket Nos. RM96-1-027 and RM05-5-001; Order No. 698]

Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines; Standards for Business Practices for Public Utilities

Issued June 25, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
amending its open access regulations governing standards for business
practices and electronic communications with interstate natural gas
pipelines and public utilities. The Commission is incorporating by
reference certain standards promulgated by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant
(WGQ) and the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) of the North American
Energy Standards Board (NAESB). Through this rulemaking, the Commission
is seeking to improve coordination between the gas and electric
industries in order to improve communications about scheduling of gas-
fired generators.

DATES: Effective Dates: This rule will become effective August 15,
2007. Natural gas pipelines and public utilities are required to
implement these standards and file a statement demonstrating compliance
by November 1, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Michael Goldenberg, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
202-502-8685.
    Kay Morice, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                               Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.

I. Background...............................................           2
II. Discussion..............................................          10
  A. Incorporation by Reference of NAESB Standards..........          10
    1. Terminology..........................................          17
    2. WEQ Standard 011-0.1/WGQ Standard 0.2.1..............          22
    3. WEQ Standard 011-1.2/WGQ Standard 0.3.12.............          24
    4. WEQ Standard 011-1.3/WGQ Standard 0.3.13.............          28

    5. WEQ Standard 011-1.4 and WGQ Standard 0.3.14.........          35
    6. WEQ Standard 011-1.5.................................          37
    7. WEQ Standard 011-1.6/WGQ Standard 0.3.15.............          42
    8. Additional Issue.....................................          48
  B. Additional Issues Raised by NAESB......................          50
    1. Use of Gas Indices for Pricing Capacity Release                51
     Transactions...........................................
    2. Pipelines' Ability to Permit Shippers to Choose                58
     Alternate Delivery Points..............................
    3. Changes to the Intraday Nomination Gas Schedule......          64
III. Implementation Dates and Procedures....................          70
IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards..........          71
V. Information Collection Statement.........................          72
VI. Environmental Analysis..................................          78
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act.............................          79
VIII. Document Availability.................................          80
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification...........          82

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
amending parts 38 and 284 of its open access regulations governing
standards for business practices and electronic communications with
interstate natural gas pipelines and public utilities. The Commission
is incorporating by reference certain standards promulgated by the
North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB).\1\ Incorporation by
reference of these standards will establish communication protocols
between interstate pipelines and power plant operators and transmission
owners and operators. This will help improve coordination between the
gas and electric industries in order to improve communications about
scheduling of gas-fired generators. Improved communications should
enhance reliability in both industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The standards for the Wholesale Electric Quadrant are: Gas/
Electric Coordination Standards WEQ-001-0.1 through WEQ-011-0.3 and
WEQ-011-1.1 through WEQ-011-1.6. The standards for the Wholesale Gas
Quadrant are: Additional Standards, Definitions 0.2.1 through 0.2.3
and Standards 0.3.11 through 0.3.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. NAESB is a non-profit, private standards development
organization established in January 2002 to develop voluntary standards
and model business practices designed to promote more competitive and
efficient natural gas and electric service. Since 1995, NAESB and its
predecessor, the Gas Industry Standards Board, have been accredited
members of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), complying
with ANSI's requirements that its standards reflect a consensus of the
affected industries.
    3. NAESB's standards include business practices that streamline the
transactional processes of the natural gas and electric industries, as
well as communication protocols and related standards designed to
improve the efficiency of communication within each industry. NAESB
supports all four quadrants of the gas and electric industries--
wholesale gas, wholesale electricity, retail gas, and retail
electricity--and recognizes the ongoing convergence of the gas and
electric businesses by ensuring that its standards receive the input of
all industry quadrants when appropriate. All participants in the gas
and electric industries are eligible to join NAESB, belong to one or
more quadrant(s), and participate in standards development.
    4. NAESB's Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) is composed of five
industry segments: Pipelines, producers, local distribution companies,
end users, and services (including marketers and computer service
companies). NAESB's Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) now includes six
industry segments: Transmission, generation, marketer/brokers,
distribution/load serving entities, end users, and independent grid
planners/operators. NAESB's procedures ensure that all industry members
can have input into the development of a standard, whether or not they
are members of NAESB, and each standard NAESB adopts is supported by a
consensus of the relevant industry segments.
    5. Since 1996, in Order No. 587 and subsequent orders, the
Commission, through its notice-and-comment rulemaking process, adopted
relevant gas standards by incorporating these standards by reference
into its regulations.\2\ On April 25, 2006, the Commission by a similar
process incorporated by reference the first set of NAESB electric
standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 (July 26, 1996), FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ] 31,038 (July
17, 1996).
    \3\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities, Order No. 676, 71 FR 26199 (May 4, 2006), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,216 (Apr. 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In January 2004, a cold snap highlighted the need for better
coordination and communication between the gas and electric industries
as coincident peaks occurred in both industries making the acquisition
of gas and transportation by power plant operators more difficult. In
response to this need, in early 2004, NAESB established a Gas-Electric
Coordination Task Force to examine issues related to the
interrelationship of the gas and electric industries and identify
potential areas for improved coordination through standardization.
Because of the importance of such coordination, the NAESB Board of
Directors established a Gas-Electric Interdependency Committee in
September 2004 to review coordination issues and identify potential
areas for standards development.
    7. As a result of these efforts, on June 27, 2005, NAESB filed a
status report with the Commission. The report included ten business
practice standards jointly developed by the wholesale gas and electric
quadrants,\4\ the first such collaboration between the two quadrants.
The standards, in general, address communication processes between
pipelines, power plant operators, and transmission operators.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Seven of these ten standards apply to both the gas and
electric industries.
    \5\ On June 28, 2006, NAESB filed a report advising that the
following permanent numbers have been assigned to these standards.
The standards for the Wholesale Electric Quadrant are Gas/Electric
Coordination Standards WEQ-011-0.1 through WEQ-011-0.3 and WEQ-011-
1.1 through WEQ-011-1.6. The standards for the Wholesale Gas
Quadrant are: Additional Standards, Definitions 0.2.1 through 0.2.3
and Standards 0.3.11 through 0.3.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Additionally, the report highlighted 13 issues involving gas and
electric interdependency. On February 24, 2006, NAESB filed a final
report (Final

Report) with the Commission on the efforts of the Gas-Electric
Interdependency Committee. Based on the 13 issues, the Final Report
identified six potential areas where Commission guidance could assist
NAESB in developing new or updated business practices to improve
coordination between the gas and electric industries.
    9. On October 25, 2006, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) \6\ that proposed to incorporate by reference the
WEQ's standards, Gas/Electric Coordination Standards WEQ-011-0.1
through WEQ-011-0.3 and WEQ-011-1.1 through WEQ-011.1.6 and the WGQ's
standards, Additional Standards, Definitions 0.2.1 through 0.2.3 and
Standards 0.3.11 through 0.3.15. The Commission also provided guidance
on the six areas of potential standards development addressed by NAESB.
Fifteen comments \7\ and one reply comment were filed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Standards for Business Practices for Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines; Standards for Business Practices for Public Utilities, 71
FR 64,655 (Nov. 3, 2006).
    \7\ Those filing comments are: The ISO/RTO Council (IRC), the
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), ISO New
England (ISO-NE), NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage (NiSource),
FPL Energy, LLC (FPL Energy), Electric Power Supply Association
(EPSA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Florida Cities, El Paso
Corporation Pipeline Group (El Paso), Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District (Salt River), Natural
Gas Supply Association (NGSA), Duke Energy Gas Transmission, LLC
(Duke), American Gas Association (AGA), the Carolina Gas
Transmission Corporation (Carolina Gas), and Dominion Resources,
Inc. (Dominion).
    \8\ AGA filed reply comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Incorporation by Reference of NAESB Standards

    10. The Commission is amending parts 38 and 284 of its regulations
to incorporate by reference the NAESB WEQ and WGQ definitions and
business practice standards providing for coordination and
communication between natural gas pipelines and the various electric
industry operators, including Regional Transmission Organizations
(RTOs), Independent System Operators (ISOs) and gas-fired generators.
The Commission also is amending section 38.1 so that it applies to
public utilities that own, operate or control facilities used to
effectuate wholesale power sales.
    11. Pipelines and public utilities are required to implement these
standards by November 1, 2007. However, pipelines and public utilities
are not required to make tariff filings to include these standards in
their tariffs at this time. These standards will be included in tariffs
when the pipelines and utilities file to incorporate into their tariffs
the next revised version of the NAESB standards. However, for the two
standards requiring communication procedures to be established,\9\ the
Commission is requiring pipelines and public utilities to demonstrate
compliance by filing a statement by November 1, 2007, as to whether
they have established the required procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ These standards are WEQ Standard 011-1.2/WGQ Standard
0.3.12; and WEQ Standard 011-1.6/WGQ Standard 0.3.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The coordination and communication required by these standards
will help improve the reliability of both the gas and electric
industries by ensuring that all parties have information necessary for
the scheduling and dispatch of natural gas-fired generation, and for
the scheduling of the natural gas transportation necessary to supply
fuel to these generators. The standards, for example, would require
gas-fired power plant operators and pipelines to establish procedures
to communicate material changes in circumstances that may affect hourly
flow rates. These standards ensure that pipelines have relevant
planning information that will assist in maintaining the operational
integrity and reliability of pipeline service, as well as providing
gas-fired power plant operators with information as to whether hourly
flow deviations can be honored.
    13. The standards further improve communication by requiring
electric transmission operators and power plant operators to sign up to
receive from connecting pipelines operational flow orders and other
critical notices. These standards ensure that operators of the electric
grid can stay abreast of developments on gas pipelines that can affect
the reliability of electric service. The standards require 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). This
information should assist reliability coordinators in assessing the
relative reliability of various gas-fired generators.
    14. A consensus of the industry considered this language in NAESB's
balanced process beginning in 2004 and leading up to NAESB's filing on
June 27, 2005. All parties were welcome to participate in this process
and participation was broad. No party expresses concern or otherwise
indicates that NAESB's process was flawed.
    15. As the Commission found in Order Nos. 587 and 676, 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 all segments of the
industry. Moreover, since the industry itself has to conduct business
under these standards, the Commission's regulations should reflect
those standards that have the widest possible support. In 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 means to carry out policy objectives or
activities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pub L. No. 104-113, Sec.  12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15
U.S.C. 272 note (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. A majority of commenters support the Commission's goal of
increased communication between the gas and electric industries, and
therefore do not object to incorporation of the standards into the
Commission's regulations.\11\ Dominion states that the communication
requirements are important, and asks that the Commission continue to
develop policies that provide for even greater levels of gas-electric
coordination. Some participants, while not objecting to the standards,
raise concerns and suggest changes to the language. These issues are
addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ E.g., AGA, Carolina Gas, Dominion, Duke, El Paso, EPSA,
Florida Cities, FPL Energy, INGAA, IRC, NiSource, Salt River, and
TVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Terminology
Comments
    17. IRC comments that NAESB's standards use a number of terms not
commonly used in the electric industry (such as ``Power Plant
Operator'') and suggests that the Commission direct NAESB to adopt the
terminology in the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)
Functional Model, which contains a detailed set of functional
definitions, in order to eliminate any potential for confusion.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ IRC Comments at 2. The ``functional definitions'' referred
to by IRC are available on the Web site of the North American
Electric Reliability Council at http://www.nerc.com/~filez/functionalmodel.html
.

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

    18. IRC also states that as currently drafted, the standards appear
to apply terms inconsistently, noting that the standards appear to
substitute the term ``independent Balancing Authority'' for ISOs/RTOs
in some instances. IRC argues that the NAESB standards require ISOs/
RTOs to bear significant responsibilities, but do not appear to require
balancing authorities other than ISOs/RTOs or certain other independent
entities to carry out responsibilities under the standards. IRC also
notes that the standards include references to other NAESB standards
that are not specifically identified, i.e. references to other
``related'' WGQ standards without providing any indication of which
standards are ``related.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. ISO-NE suggests additional definitions be added to the WEQ and
WGQ standards. It proposes a new Definition D4, which would define
``Directly Connected TSP'', and a new Definition D5, which would
identify ``Communication Standards.'' Definition D5 would be used to
supplement WEQ Standard 011-1.1/WGQ Standard 0.3.11, and, in ISO-NE's
view, these definitions would create greater consistency and clarity
among the standards.
Commission Determination
    20. We do not find a need to revise the terminology used in the
standards. Those protesting the terminology do not object to the
substance of the standards. All of the relevant parties were, or could
have been, involved in the drafting of the standards, and the
definitions and terminology used in the standards reflect a consensus
of the industry. The language used in the standards is clear, and those
parties that think the language could be made even more precise can
seek such clarifications and revisions through the NAESB process so
that the implications of such changes can be considered by all
segments.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Order No. 676, 71 FR 26199, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,216,
at P 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Indeed, since NAESB filed its report, it has added a segment to
its WEQ for Independent Grid Operators/Planners, and as of April 5, ten
parties have joined this segment, including the California ISO, the
Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the Independent Electricity
System Operator, ISO-NE, the Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, the New York Independent System Operator, PJM
Interconnection, the Southwest Power Pool, Transerv International, and
the Alberta Electric System Operator. We encourage parties with
concerns about the standards to bring their suggestions to the WEQ and
the WGQ.
2. WEQ Standard 011-0.1/WGQ Standard 0.2.1
    22. WEQ Standard 011-0.1/WGQ Standard 0.2.1 defines the term
``Power Plant Operator'' as the entity(ies) having responsibility for
natural gas requirements and coordinating deliveries to meet those
requirements at natural gas-fired electric generating facility(ies).
ISO-NE comments that the standard presumes that the entity that has
direct control over the gas requirements for a gas-fired electric
generating facility is always the same entity that is responsible for
coordinating natural gas deliveries with the appropriate transportation
service provider. ISO-NE notes that, in fact, these two requirements
may be handled by different parties and requests that this definition
be modified to accommodate such possibilities.
    23. We find the standard to be sufficiently clear. Contrary to ISO-
NE's assertion that the standard presumes that the same entity that has
direct control over the gas requirements for a gas-fired electric
generating facility is always the same entity that is responsible for
coordinating with the appropriate transportation service provider, the
standard clearly uses the plural ``entity(ies)'' when defining ``PPO.''
The standard also states that ``Because each [power plant operator] is
structured differently, specific responsibilities within each [power
plant operator] should be determined by the [power plant operator] and
the point of contact for the [power plant operator] should be
communicated to the [transportation service provider(s)].''
3. WEQ Standard 011-1.2/WGQ Standard 0.3.12
    24. WEQ Standard 011-1.2/WGQ Standard 0.3.12 directs the power
plant operator and the transportation service provider directly
connected to the power plant operator's facility(ies) to establish
procedures to communicate material changes in circumstances that may
impact hourly flow rates, and the power plant operator to provide
projected hourly flow rates accordingly.
Comments
    25. ISO-NE states that the standard requires power plant operators
to provide hourly flow rates but does not specify to whom. ISO-NE
suggests that the standard be modified to specify that the directly-
connected transportation service provider is the party intended to
receive hourly flow rates from the power plant operator. NiSource
expresses concern over the requirement that pipelines convey ``material
changes in circumstance that may impact hourly flow rates.'' It asserts
that there are many variables that ``may'' impact hourly flow rates. In
addition, NiSource notes that the standard requires the pipeline and
the power plant operator to establish communication procedures
regarding this information, yet does not provide any guidance as to the
type of procedures that should be created. NiSource asks that the
Commission clarify that pipelines will be able to raise objections with
respect to this language in any future dispute proceedings.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NiSource Comments at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    26. We disagree that with ISO-NE that the standard needs further
clarification to specify that the directly-connected transportation
service provider is the party intended to receive hourly flow rates
from the power plant operator. The standard specifically refers to
communications procedures between the power plant operator and the
directly-connected transportation service provider, so that it is clear
that the hourly flow rates need to be communicated to the directly-
connected transportation service provider.
    27. With respect to NiSource's comment, the pipeline will need to
determine which events materially affect hourly flow rates and
communicate those events to the power plant operators. Pipelines are
already required by NAESB standards to use judgment in issuing system-
wide notices that impact pipeline operations, and this requirement is
not different.\16\ Similarly, the communications procedures should be
established between the pipeline and the power plant operator.
Pipelines and power plant operators should have the flexibility to
establish the procedures they deem most efficient. NiSource will be
able to negotiate the details when it works with relevant power plant
operators to establish the communication procedures required by this
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 18 CFR 284.12(a)(vi) Capacity Release Related Standards,
Standard 5.4.16 (system wide notices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. WEQ Standard 011-1.3/WGQ Standard 0.3.13
    28. WEQ Standard 011-1.3/WGQ Standard 0.3.13 states that power
plant operators should not operate without an approved scheduled
quantity pursuant to the NAESB WGQ standard nomination timeline and
scheduling processes or as permitted by the

transportation service provider's tariff, general terms and conditions,
and/or contract provisions. The standard further states that if the
power plant operator reasonably determines it has circumstances
requiring the need to request gas scheduling changes outside the WGQ
nomination and scheduling processes, and the transportation service
provider supports the processing of such changes, the power plant
operator may request daily flow rates as established by either the
communication procedures established in the standards or as specified
in the transportation service provider's tariff or general terms and
conditions. The standard states that the power plant operator and all
affected transportation service providers should work to resolve the
power plant operator's request if it can be accommodated (1) in
accordance with the appropriate application of the affected
transportation service provider's tariff requirement, contract
provisions, business practices, or other similar provisions, and (2)
without adversely impacting other scheduled services, anticipated
flows, no-notice services, firm contract requirements and/or general
system operations.
Comments
    29. IRC comments that the standard suggests that transportation
service providers may be granting service to power plant operators
outside of normal Open Access Same-Time Information Systems (OASIS)
posting requirements. IRC submits that, in order to ensure transparency
and compliance with the Commission's rules, any communications between
the transportation service provider and power plant operator must also
adhere to the Commission's OASIS posting requirements and its Standards
of Conduct regulations.
    30. ISO-NE asserts that the standard states in part that a power
plant operator should not operate without an approved schedule, and
suggests that, in order to avoid confusion with the electric scheduling
process, this standard be modified to specify that it is referring to
the ``approved gas schedule'' and ``gas scheduling processes''. ISO-NE
also recommends that the directly-connected transportation service
provider is the party intended to receive hourly flow rates from the
power plant operator.
    31. NiSource comments that the type of procedure to be established
between a pipeline and a power plant operator to communicate hourly
flow rate information is not clear, and that it wishes to preserve its
ability to object to any power plant operator requests for unreasonable
communications procedures.\17\ NiSource also states that the standard
does not unambiguously state that a pipeline that does not provide for
a special nomination cycle in its tariff does not have to accommodate
such a request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NiSource Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    32. The purpose of this standard is to provide for greater
flexibility in scheduling pipeline transportation in circumstances in
which the pipeline is able to accommodate such flexibility. Regarding
IRC's concern about compliance with Commission regulations, nothing in
this standard grants a waiver from the Commission's standards of
conduct or other regulations. The IRC's reference to the OASIS is not
clear, since these are gas transactions between the power plant
operator and the pipeline, not OASIS scheduling requests.
    33. We disagree with ISO-NE's argument that the standard is
ambiguous or confusing. The standard's language regarding scheduling
clearly concerns scheduled quantities of gas pursuant to the NAESB WGQ
standard nomination timeline.
    34. With respect to NiSource's concern about communication details,
as we explained above, we find it more appropriate for the pipeline and
the power plant operator to work out the most efficient method for
communicating any such scheduling requests. With respect to NiSource's
concern about its obligations, the standard clearly states that, if the
pipeline supports the processing of such special requests, it must work
to resolve such requests if they can be accommodated in accordance with
the appropriate application of the affected pipeline's tariff
requirement, contract provisions, business practices, or other similar
provisions, and without adversely impacting other scheduled services,
anticipated flows, no-notice services, firm contract requirements and/
or general system operations. We find that these conditions provide
reasonable and appropriate protections for the pipelines.
5. WEQ Standard 011-1.4 and WGQ Standard 0.3.14
    35. WEQ Standard 011-1.4 requires RTOs, ISOs, independent
transmission operators and/or power plant operators to sign up to
receive operational flow orders and other critical notices from the
appropriate transportation service provider(s), and WGQ Standard 0.3.14
requires transportation service providers to provide operational flow
orders and other critical notices to RTOs, ISOs, independent
transmission operators, and power plant operators. ISO-NE argues that
the terms RTOs, ISOs and independent transmission operators in these
standards should be replaced with ``balancing authorities''. ISO-NE
states that RTOs/ISOs should not bear a higher burden of responsibility
than other balancing authorities in this context.
    36. These standards require only that RTOs, ISOs and independent
transmission operators need to sign up to receive information from
pipelines about operational flow orders that may affect gas-fired
generators on their systems. The genesis for the development of these
standards was the coordination problems between the gas industry and
the scheduling practices of ISOs and RTOs, particularly the problems
faced by gas-fired generators in ISO-NE during the 2004 cold snap.
These standards along with the other standards will help ensure that,
in the event of a recurrence of such circumstances, the RTOs, ISOs, and
independent transmission operators will be fully informed of conditions
that may affect the reliable performance of generators on their
systems. ISO-NE does not explain why RTOs, ISOs, and independent
transmission operators should be exempt from the requirement to receive
information that may have a crucial impact on the reliability of the
operation of their systems.\18\ Nor does ISO-NE provide evidence that
the same scheduling problems affected balancing authorities that are
not RTOs, ISOs, independent transmission operators or power plant
operators, such that they too should be required to sign up to receive
operational flow orders and other critical notices from transportation
service providers. If ISO-NE believes the standard should be expanded
to include all balancing authorities, it should seek such changes from
NAESB, so that all industry segments can participate in the
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ All RTOs and ISOs, for example, are not necessarily
balancing authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. WEQ Standard 011-1.5
    37. The standard requires that, upon request, a power plant
operator must provide to the appropriate independent balancing
authority and/or reliability coordinator pertinent information
concerning the level of gas transportation service (firm or
interruptible) and its natural gas supply (firm, fixed or variable
quantity, or interruptible).

Comments
    38. Florida Cities states that due to the commercially sensitive
nature of this information operators should only be required to divulge
the information needed to ensure the reliable operation of the
transmission grid, and no more (i.e., an electric balancing authority
asking for supply and transportation information for the immediate
future rather than day-ahead). In addition, Florida Cities asks the
Commission to clarify how it will be determined which entity or
entities will be authorized to request this information, and with what
frequency they may do so.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Florida Cities Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. FPL Energy does not support the standard, commenting that it
would create a way for electric balancing authorities and reliability
coordinators to rank power supplies based on perceived reliability. In
FPL Energy's view this would put merchant generators that are unable to
contract for long-term firm gas pipeline capacity at a disadvantage in
competing for power sales versus utility sales and sales from non-gas
power suppliers.\20\ FPL Energy requests that the Commission refrain
from adopting such a protocol until a mechanism that would compensate
merchant generators for holding long-term firm capacity on gas
pipelines is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FPL Energy Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    40. We find that the standard is appropriate and does not require
improper sharing of commercially sensitive information with
competitors. The standard as written only requires power plant
operators to provide information regarding its gas transportation and
performance obligation to independent balancing authorities and/or
reliability coordinators.
    41. Regarding FPL Energy's concern that independent balancing
authorities and/or reliability coordinators might choose to rank
generators based on reliability of gas supply, it is not clear that the
information will be used for that purpose. Increased communication and
information about natural gas deliverability should help system
operators understand potential operating problems on their system.
Moreover, even if the information were used for ranking, as FPL Energy
argues, FPL Energy has not shown why access to firm pipeline
transportation should not be used as part of the analysis of the
reliability of a gas fired generation. A generator with firm
transportation and a firm gas supply generally would be more likely to
be able to obtain gas when pipelines are constrained than generators
relying solely on interruptible transportation. Moreover, as discussed
above, the independence of the balancing authority and reliability
coordinator will help ensure that the information is used
appropriately. The benefits from enhanced communication about natural
gas deliverability outweigh the potential that in a particular
circumstance an independent balancing authority or reliability
coordinator will use the information inappropriately. If FPL Energy
believes an independent balancing authority or reliability coordinator
in a particular circumstance has used such information inappropriately,
it can file a complaint.
7. WEQ Standard 011-1.6/WGQ Standard 0.3.15
    42. This standard requires RTOs, ISOs, independent transmission
operators, independent balancing authorities and/or regional
reliability coordinators to establish operational communication
procedures with the appropriate transportation service provider and/or
power plant operator.
Comments
    43. ISO-NE notes that it is unclear why this standard is applicable
only to independent balancing authorities since it would seem that all
balancing authorities would benefit from communications with all power
plant operators. In addition, ISO-NE suggests that the language ``and/
or'' be replaced with ``and'' to avoid any confusion.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ISO-NE Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. INGAA asks that the Commission clarify that it is the party
responsible for managing the operations of each electric facility (i.e.
RTO) to initiate the communication procedures required under this
standard. INGAA states that allocation of responsibility is appropriate
because the pipeline does not have firsthand information as to all the
pertinent electric industry operators to which the power plants on the
pipeline's system belong.
    45. NiSource comments that a pipeline could have power plant
operator shippers that are located in the service territories of many
different entities (i.e., RTOs, ISOs). In such a case, WEQ Standard
011-1.6/WGQ Standard 0.3.15 could require that the pipeline develop
numerous sets of communications procedures depending on the wishes of
the other entities. NiSource states that such a requirement would be
overly burdensome and difficult to maintain, and requests that the
Commission make clear that a pipeline preserves the ability to argue in
a future dispute proceeding that it is not obligated to develop new
communication procedures that are not currently supported by the
pipeline's existing communication infrastructure.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NiSource Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    46. As we explained above, the consensus of NAESB members sought to
limit the communications requirement to independent balancing
authorities, which helps to protect against disclosure of confidential
information. If ISO-NE believes that this rationale should not apply to
WEQ Standard 011-1.6/WGQ Standard 0.3.15, it can seek a change through
NAESB which will allow all industry segments to participate in the
determination.
    47. We agree with INGAA that the RTOs, ISOs, independent
transmission operators, independent balancing authorities and/or
regional reliability coordinators are the parties responsible for
initiating communication procedures, given that these parties should be
the most knowledgeable regarding the pipelines used by power plants on
their system. With respect to NiSource's comment we expect that the
pipelines and RTOs, ISOs, and independent transmission operators will
be able to work cooperatively to develop mutually agreeable, and
efficient communication procedures. We are requiring in this rule that
the parties file with us by November 1, 2007 to indicate that they have
established the appropriate communication procedures. Should there be
unresolved disputes at that time, the pipelines, RTOs, ISOs and
independent transmission operators should advise the Commission what
the unresolved issues are so the Commission can establish procedures to
resolve those disputes, including the use of our dispute resolution and
settlement judge procedures.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In a similar situation in the past (a requirement that
pipelines enter into operational balancing agreements (OBAs) with
interconnecting pipelines), rather than requiring pipelines to file
their OBAs, the Commission required the pipelines to file a
statement with the Commission certifying that they have complied
with the requirement to enter into OBAs. Standards for Business
Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, 85 FERC ] 61,371
(1998). The Commission stood ready with Alternative Dispute
Resolution and ultimately Commission action to resolve any disputes.
See Standards For Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587-G, 63 FR 20072 (Apr. 23, 1998), FERC
Statutes and Regulations, Regulations Preambles July 1996- December
2000 ] 31,062 (Apr. 16, 1998).

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

8. Additional Issue
    48. AGA states that, while it supports the incorporation of the
NAESB standards, the existing operational rights of natural gas
pipeline customers should not be changed as a result of efforts to
increase communication and coordination between the gas and electric
industries. To that end, AGA asks that the Commission ensure that NAESB
standards WEQ-011-1.1/WGQ 0.3.11 and WEQ-011-1.3/WGQ 0.3.13 are
enforced.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ AGA Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. We expect pipelines to comply with all the NAESB standards
incorporated by reference in our regulations just as we expect them to
comply with all of our other regulations that pertain to them.

B. Additional Issues Raised by NAESB

    50. NAESB identified six issues for which it requested
clarification of existing Commission policy or put forward potential
areas for standards development that some industry participants believe
might assist in resolving coordination problems between the gas and
electric industries. The Commission provided clarification and guidance
in the NOPR. Parties requested additional clarification on three
issues, which we discuss below.
1. Use of Gas Indices for Pricing Capacity Release Transactions
    51. In the Final Report filed with the Commission on February 24,
2006, NAESB requested clarification of Commission policy regarding the
use of gas indices to price capacity release transactions, so that it
could develop standards for such releases. In the NOPR, the Commission
clarified that releasing shippers should be free to offer the same type
of pricing arrangements that the pipeline offers and, therefore,
releasing shippers are free to use gas price indices in pricing
released capacity so long as the rate paid by the replacement shipper
does not exceed the maximum rate in the pipeline's tariff.
Comments
    52. INGAA states that the Commission clarified that, where
pipelines offer discounts based on gas price indices, the provisions of
the pipeline's tariff governing capacity releases should not prevent
releasing shippers from offering the same type of pricing in such a
transaction. INGAA contends, however, that not all pipelines have
language within their tariffs regarding permissible discounts.
Therefore, INGAA requests that the Commission clarify that a
requirement to allow releasing shippers to release capacity using gas
price indices only applies to pipelines with such language in their
tariffs and that releases must be consistent with the pipeline
tariff.\25\ INGAA also requests that the Commission clarify that
releasing shippers must specify all aspects of the release, including
how to determine the best bid and the amount to bill under the release.
Similarly, Carolina Gas requests clarification that releasing shippers
desiring to use gas price indices to price capacity releases should
only use published index prices that are readily available and
agreeable for use by the pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ INGAA Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. Other commenters disagree. For example, NGSA argues the
Commission should clarify releasing shippers should have the ability to
release capacity using index-based pricing regardless of the pipeline's
decision to exercise that authority. It contends that as long as the
capacity release shipper is selling its capacity at, or below, the
maximum tariff rate, it should be of no consequence how the pipeline
prices its own primary capacity. NGSA asks the Commission to clarify
the methodology pipelines should use to evaluate bids for primary and
secondary market capacity made available at an index-based rate.
Finally, NGSA requests that the Commission direct NAESB to establish
the necessary data sets to allow for shippers to release capacity at
rates which are based on gas price indices.
    54. Several commenters, while in support of the Commission's
proposed clarification, believe the Commission has limited the
flexibility in pricing capacity releases by stating that such prices
may not exceed the pipeline's maximum tariff rate.\26\ These commenters
argue for the removal of the price cap on capacity release
transactions. FPL Energy asserts that lifting the price cap in the
secondary market will result in more liquidity and competition for
pipeline capacity as more shippers decide to purchase and manage their
own capacity because they will have more opportunity to defray capacity
costs and achieve fair market value for the capacity when it is not
needed to generate power.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ E.g., Dominion, Florida Cities, and FPL Energy.
    \27\ FPL Energy Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    55. The Commission's regulations permit releasing shippers to use
price indices or other formula rates on all pipelines, regardless of
whether the pipeline has included a provision allowing the use of
indices as part of its discounting provisions, so long as the prices
are less than maximum rate in the pipeline's tariff. Section 284.8(b)
\28\ of the Commission's regulations states that ``firm shippers must
be permitted to release their capacity, in whole or in part, without
restrictions on the terms or conditions for release,'' and section
284.8(e) \29\ mandates that such a release may not be ``over the
maximum rate.'' All pipelines are permitted to use price indices in
discount transactions either through provisions in their tariffs or by
means of filing a non-conforming service agreement.\30\ Providing
releasing shippers with this flexibility is consistent with the
``original intent of the Commission's capacity release regulations by
providing releasing shippers with the flexibility to structure capacity
release transactions that best fit their business needs.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 18 CFR 284.8(b).
    \29\ 18 CFR 284.8(e).
    \30\ Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 82 FERC ] 61,298,
62,179-80 (1998) (non-conforming provisions relating to discounts
``must be on file and approved by the Commission--either in
Natural's pro forma service agreement or as nonconforming
contracts'').
    \31\ Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587-N, 67 FR 11906 (March 18, 2002), FERC
Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles ] 31,125 at P 21 (Mar. 11,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. INGAA has expressed concern about possible problems in
implementing this requirement on pipelines that do not provide for
indexed releases in their tariffs. Under the Commission regulations,
the releasing shipper is responsible for clearly setting out the terms
and conditions of the release and that would include the means for
implementing the formula rate. This is also an issue on which NAESB can
develop standards to ensure that such releases can be processed quickly
and efficiently.
    57. Some of the comments suggest that the price cap be lifted for
capacity release transactions. This issue is already being addressed by
the Commission in Docket Nos. RM06-21-000 and RM07-4-000, so it is not
appropriate to address in this proceeding.
2. Pipelines' Ability To Permit Shippers To Choose Alternate Delivery
Points
    58. In its Final Report, NAESB requested clarification regarding
the ability of pipelines to permit shippers to shift gas deliveries
from a primary to a secondary delivery point when a pipeline constraint
occurs upstream of both points. Such changes would make it easier for
shippers to redirect gas supplies to generators during periods when
capacity is scarce. NAESB

provided, as an example, that a customer has 100 dekatherms scheduled
to flow from a primary receipt point through the posted point of
restriction to a primary delivery point. Under the same contract, the
customer then requests a nomination change to move 50 of the 100
dekatherms to a secondary delivery point that is outside its
transportation path but still through the posted point of restriction.
    59. In the NOPR, the Commission discussed Order No. 637-B, which
provided that pipelines must implement within-the-path scheduling under
which a shipper seeking to use a secondary delivery point within its
scheduling path has priority over another shipper seeking to use the
same delivery point but that point is outside of its transportation
path.\32\ In addition, it stated that the scenario posed by NAESB was a
slight variation of the within-the-path scheduling, and clarified that
it would be reasonable to permit the reassignment as posited in most
cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Regulation of Short-Term Natural Gas Transportation
Services, 92 FERC ] 61,062 at 61,168-70 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    60. Salt River supports the ability of a gas shipper to make
changes to its delivery point (from primary to alternate) once it has
been confirmed through a constraint point without having it be treated
as a new nomination. It argues that this ability better enables the
electric industry to ensure that gas can move to the facilities that
require it on an intra-day basis without having to be concerned about
pro-rata curtailments or scheduled quantity cuts.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Salt River Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. Dominion agrees with the determination of shipper priority in
the Commission's example, it is concerned that there may be other
caveats beyond the one posited in which the Commission's specific
``clarification'' may not be appropriate. Florida Cities has no
objection to the Commission's proposed clarification, but states that
the Commission should not require all pipelines to require this
accommodation without exception. It states that any prior arrangements
concerning delivery point nominations are preserved. For example,
Florida Cities contends that Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC has
a system in which secondary delivery point nominations are considered
on a ``jump ball basis'', meaning the ability of a shipper to move its
nomination from the primary delivery point to the secondary delivery
point will be contingent upon whether secondary point nominations for
that flow day create a need for the allocation of capacity instead of
by virtue of pathing rights.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Florida Cities Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. INGAA requests that the Commission clarify in the Final Rule
that its proposed clarification is not intended to revise its policies
concerning capacity allocation or to broaden shippers' flexible point
rights beyond those set out in Order Nos. 637.\35\ El Paso further
requests that the Commission state that the normal processes for new
standards development apply to any new standards proposed relating to
this issue.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ INGAA Comments at 8.
    \36\ El Paso Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    63. The Commission is not modifying its requirement for within-the-
path scheduling as adopted in Order No. 637. The example posited by
NAESB appears consistent with the within-the-path scheduling concept
and with pipeline proposals that have been accepted.\37\ It would not
be appropriate for the Commission here to try to provide generic
clarification to cover all possible proposals by pipelines for
according flexibility to shippers. These proposals will have to be
judged on an individual basis. In addition, NAESB can consider through
its consensus process possible standards for according increased
receipt and delivery point flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Algonquin Gas Transmission Co., Director Letter Order,
Docket No. RP06-69-000 (November 22, 2005); Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP, Director Letter Order, Docket No. RP06-70-000
(November 22, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Changes to the Intraday Nomination Gas Schedule
    64. In its Final Report, NAESB raised the possibility of developing
standards that would offer an additional intraday nomination cycle with
rights for firm shippers to bump interruptible nominations. NAESB
suggested that such a standard would provide more flexibility to
shippers, including power generators, with firm transportation rights
so that they can nominate for natural gas supporting their market
clearing times. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that its bumping
policy requires that the last intra-day nomination opportunity would be
one in which firm nominations do not bump interruptible nominations,
but that NAESB could consider whether to add another intra-day
nomination opportunity with bumping rights prior to the final non-
bumping opportunity, or to develop additional changes to its nomination
timeline to better coordinate with electric scheduling.
Comments
    65. Various commenters support the development of a standard to
modify the timing of the existing nomination schedule or add an
additional nomination period.\38\ Dominion states that having an
additional cycle(s) is desirable, as it would allow firm shippers to
ensure their gas flows and thereby help repair the disconnect between
the gas and electric scheduling timelines. Duke agrees, and requests
that the NAESB WEQ be allowed to determine whether any additional
nomination cycle will produce the desired effects of greater shipper
flexibility and security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ E.g., Dominion, Duke, Florida Cities, FPL Energy, Salt
River, TVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66. FPL Energy and Florida Cities do not object to the addition of
a new intraday nomination cycle so long as any new nomination
opportunity does not carry bumping rights in the event that it becomes
the next to last nomination opportunity. Florida Cities states that if
such rights were afforded, interruptible shippers may be forced into
the market late with little chance of finding a replacement market. In
addition, FPL Energy is concerned that having more opportunities to
bump interruptible service could cause supply sources that cannot shut
down quickly to limit their sales to firm shippers, thus harming those
shippers wishing to utilize interruptible service. On the other hand,
while TVA agrees with the addition of a new intraday nomination cycle,
it requests that the Commission eliminate the ``no-bump'' rule
entirely, as it puts interruptible transportation on equal footing with
the highest priority firm transportation, i.e., a shipper paying the
lowest rate on the system can displace those shippers that pay one of
the highest rates on the system.
    67. Other participants oppose the introduction of an additional
nomination cycle.\39\ Carolina Gas states that having another intra-day
nomination opportunity would create unnecessary administrative
complexities and would require significant modifications to Carolina
Gas' Internet Web site. El Paso states that transportation service
providers must already complete complex allocation and confirmation
processes within a limited timeframe. Among other objectives, these
processes are designed to ensure that the nominated gas supply is
available and the

nominated market is ready to receive the gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ E.g., Carolina Gas, El Paso, EPSA, INGAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. INGAA asserts that neither altering the existing scheduling
timeline nor adding an additional intra-day nomination cycle with
bumping rights guarantees that a power generator will be able to
nominate primary firm transportation capacity when the generator most
needs that capacity, and states that any reliability issue concerning
gas supply to electric generators should be addressed through
individual pipeline proceedings. EPSA states that it is unclear whether
the addition of another nomination opportunity with or without bumping
rights would produce any significant improvement in the reliable
performance of the system.
Commission Determination
    69. As we stated in the NOPR, the Commission has recognized the
interest of interruptible shippers in achieving business certainty by
making the last intra-day nomination opportunity one in which firm
nominations do not bump interruptible nominations.\40\ However, within
the confines of current Commission policy, NAESB should actively
consider whether changes to existing intra-day schedules would benefit
all shippers, and provide for better coordination between gas and
electric scheduling. In addition, the NAESB nomination timeline
establishes only the minimum requirement to which pipelines must
adhere. We fully expect that individual pipelines supporting gas-fired
generators will be considering the addition of other intra-day
nomination opportunities that would be of benefit to their shippers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NOPR at P 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Implementation Dates and Procedures

    70. Pipelines and public utilities are required to implement the
standards we are incorporating by reference in this Final Rule by
November 1, 2007. In addition, pipelines and public utilities are
required to file a statement by November 1, 2007 as to whether they
have established the required procedures in WEQ Standard 011-1.2/WGQ
Standard 0.3.12 and WEQ Standard 011-1.6/WGQ Standard 0.3.15. To reduce
the burden on filers, we are not requiring pipelines and public
utilities to make filings to include these standards in their tariffs
at this time. These standards will be included in tariffs when the
pipelines and public utilities file to incorporate in their tariffs the
next revised version of the NAESB standards.

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

    71. In section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995, Congress affirmatively requires federal
agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus
standards organizations, like NAESB, as the means to carry out policy
objectives or activities unless use of such standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.\41\ NAESB
approved the standards under its consensus procedures. Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-119 (Sec.  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. On October 25, 2006, the Commission issued a NOPR that
proposed to incorporate by reference NAESB's Gas/Electric Coordination
Standards. The Commission took comments on the NOPR into account in
fashioning this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Pub L. No. 104-113, Sec.  12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15
U.S.C. Sec.  272 note (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Information Collection Statement

    72. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations in 5
CFR 1320.11 (2005) require that it approve certain reporting and
recordkeeping requirements (collections of information) imposed by an
agency. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign
an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to
the filing requirements of this Rule will not be penalized for failing
to respond to these collections of information unless the collections
of information display a valid OMB control number.
    73. The final rule upgrades the Commission's current business
practice and communication standards to include standardized
communication protocols between interstate pipelines and power plant
operators and transmission owners and operators. The implementation of
these standards and regulations is necessary to improve coordination
between the gas and electric industries, to improve communications
about scheduling of gas-fired generators and to improve the reliability
in both industries. The following burden estimates include the costs to
implement the WEQ's and WGQ's definitions and business practice
standards providing for coordination and which will establish
communication protocols between interstate natural gas pipelines and
power plant operators and transmission owners and the various electric
industry operators. The implementation of these data requirements will
help the Commission carry out its responsibilities under the Federal
Power Act and Natural Gas Act of promoting the efficiency and
reliability of the electric and gas industries' operations. The
Commission's Office of Energy Markets and Reliability will use the data
for general industry oversight.
    74. The Commission sought comments to comply with these
requirements. Comments were received from sixteen entities. No comments
addressed the reporting burden imposed by these requirements and
therefore the Commission will use the same estimates in the final rule.
The substantive issues raised by the commenters are addressed in this
preamble.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                 Data collection                     Number of     responses per     Hours per     Total number
                                                    respondents     respondent       response        of hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-549C.......................................              93               1              20           1,860
FERC-717........................................             220               1              33           7,260
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............           9,120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting and Recordkeeping, (if
appropriate)) = 9,120.
    Information Collection Costs: The Commission sought comments on the
costs to comply with these requirements but no comments were received
addressing these cost estimates.
    The Commission will therefore use the same estimates in the final
rule. It has projected the average annualized cost for all respondents
to be the following: \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The total annualized cost for the two information
collections is $ 1,368,000. This number is reached by multiplying
the total hours to prepare a response (hours) by an hourly wage
estimate of $150 (a composite estimate that includes legal,
technical and support staff rates). $1,368,000 = $150 x 9,120.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             FERC-549C       FERC-717
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Capital/Startup Costs........        $279,000      $1,089,000
Annualized Costs (Operations &                       N/A             N/A
 Maintenance)...........................
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Annualized Costs..............         279,000       1,089,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. OMB regulations \43\ require OMB to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is
submitting this Final Rule to OMB for review and approval of the
information collections. These information collections are mandatory
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines (FERC-549C) Standards for Business Practices and
Communication Protocols for Public Utilities (FERC-717) (formerly Open
Access Same Time Information System).
    Action: Proposed collections.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0174 and 1902-0173.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, (Public Utilities and
Natural Gas Pipelines (Not applicable to small business.)).
    Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business
procedures, capital/start-up).
    76. Necessity of Information: The Commission's regulations adopted
in this rule are necessary to further the process begun in Order No.
587 of creating a more efficient and integrated pipeline grid by
standardizing the business practices and electronic communication of
interstate pipelines and expanded in Order No. 676 to create a more
efficient and integrated electric transmission grid by standardizing
the business practices and electronic communication of public
utilities. The Commission has reviewed the requirements pertaining to
business practices and electronic communication of public utilities and
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 improve communications for participants engaged
in the sale of electric energy at wholesale and the transportation of
natural gas.
    77. 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:
Michael Miller, Office of the Deputy Chief Information Officer, ED-30,
(202) 502-8415, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention:
Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The Desk Officer can also be reached
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

VI. Environmental Analysis

    78. 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.\44\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\45\ The actions adopted 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 and electric power that requires no
construction of facilities. Therefore, an environmental assessment is
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \45\ 18 CFR 380.4 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    79. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \46\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The regulations adopted here impose requirements only on interstate
pipelines and public utilities, the majority of which are not small
businesses, and would not have a significant economic impact. These
requirements are, in fact, designed to benefit all customers, including
small businesses. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA,
the Commission hereby certifies that the regulations adopted herein
will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Document Availability

    80. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all

interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov
) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    81. 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. 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>

IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    82. These regulations are effective August 15, 2007. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule 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 Parts 38 and 284

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

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 38 and
284 of Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 38--BUSINESS PRACTICE STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS
FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Section 38.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  38.1  Applicability.

    This part applies to any public utility that owns, operates, or
controls facilities used for the transmission of electric energy in
interstate commerce or for the sale of electric energy at wholesale in
interstate commerce and to any non-public utility that seeks voluntary
compliance with jurisdictional transmission tariff reciprocity
conditions.

0
3. Section 38.2 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(8) to read as
follows:

Sec.  38.2  Incorporation by reference of North American Energy
Standards Board Wholesale Electric Quadrant standards.

    (a) * * *
    (8) Gas/Electric Coordination Standards (WEQ-011, Version 1, as
adopted in Recommendation R04021 July 8, 2005).
* * * * *

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

0
4. 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
5. In Sec.  284.12, paragraph (a)(1)(i) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  284.12  Standards for pipeline business operations and
communications.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Additional Standards (General Standards and Creditworthiness
Standards) (Version 1.7, December 31, 2003) and Additional Standards
(Gas/Electric Operational Communications) (Version 1.8, September 30,
2006, with minor corrections applied December 31, 2006).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-13591 Filed 7-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 163)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49393-49394]
[DOCID:fr23au06-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0607; FRL-8212-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; State Implementation Plan Revision for American Cyanamid
Company, Havre de Grace, MD

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to
the removal of an August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order (Order) from the
Maryland SIP. The Order constituted a Plan for Compliance (PFC) and an
alternative method of assessing compliance at an American Cyanamid
Company (Company) facility located in Havre de Grace, Harford County,
Maryland (the Facility). The Order allowed for certain volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions sources at the Facility to achieve compliance
with emissions limits through averaging (or ``bubbling'') of emissions
over a 24-hour period. Removal of the Order from the SIP will remove
the ``bubbling'' compliance option for these sources at the Facility.
In lieu of ``bubbling,'' the sources must comply with the approved and
more stringent Maryland SIP provisions for the control of VOC
emissions, which do not allow averaging or ``bubbling.'' This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 22,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2006-0607 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0607, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality
Planning and Analysis Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2006-0607. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy during normal business hours at the

Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland
21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Bigioni,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 17, 2006, the Maryland Department of
the Environment submitted a revision to its SIP entitled ``Removal of
the 1984 American Cyanamid Company Secretarial Order from Maryland's
State Implementation Plan.'' The request was for the removal of a
Secretarial Order (by Consent) currently incorporated into the Maryland
SIP. EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's requested SIP revision
removing the Order from the SIP.

I. Background

    EPA published a final rule on May 16, 1990 (55 FR 20269), approving
the Order issued to the Company's adhesive manufacturing facility in
Havre de Grace, Maryland (the Facility), as a revision to the Maryland
SIP. The Order provided the Company with a PFC and an alternative
method of assessing compliance for certain installations located at the
Facility by allowing the averaging or ``bubbling'' of the emissions of
VOC over a 24-hour period. By allowing ``bubbling'' of VOC emissions
the Company could over-control emissions at some units and under
control at other units such that the overall emissions from the sources
collectively would be the same as those that would be achieved
utilizing traditional control strategies at each source. The VOC
sources where ``bubbling'' was allowed at the Facility were components
of the Facility's paper and fabric adhesive coating operation, and
included Towers 2, 3, and 5 and the FM-1000 coater/dryer.
    Since EPA's May 16, 1990 approval of the Order as a SIP revision
the Facility has been acquired by Cytec Engineered Materials, Inc.
(Cytec).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. The revision will remove the Order from the Maryland
SIP. Removal of the Order from the SIP will subject the VOC emissions
sources at the Facility that formerly subject to the ``bubbling''
provisions of the Order to the Maryland VOC regulations and limits
codified at Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) <IP_ADDRESS>. Those
COMAR regulations are part of the Maryland SIP. (65 FR 2334, January
14, 2000). The materials submitted by Maryland in support of the SIP
revision indicate that the Facility currently intends to comply with
the SIP-approved VOC limits by reducing VOC emissions through use of a
regenerative thermal oxidizer, as allowed by COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>B(2)(b)(ii) and the Maryland SIP (68 FR 9012, February 27,
2003). This proposed SIP revision will remove the current ability for
Cytec to comply with VOC emissions limits for the sources subject to
the Order through averaging or ``bubbling'' of VOC emissions. The SIP-
approved limits codified at COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>C do not allow for
compliance through averaging/''bubbling.'' The applicable COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>C limits of 2.9 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating as
applied (minus water), are also more stringent than the emissions limit
of 3.2 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating as applied (minus water)
imposed by the Order.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's SIP revision submitted May
27, 2006 to remove the August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order issued to
American Cyanamid Company from the SIP. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This proposed rule to remove the Secretarial Order for American
Cyanamid from the Maryland SIP does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 16, 2006.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E6-13952 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 9041]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3426]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1954-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

New Jersey; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-1954-DR), dated February 4,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 4, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 4, 2011, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Jersey resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm
during the period of December 26-27, 2010, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the
State of New Jersey.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are
further authorized to provide emergency protective measures,
including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for
any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident
period. You may extend the period of assistance, as warranted. This
assistance excludes regular time costs for the sub-grantees' regular
employees. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, William L. Vogel, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New Jersey have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Bergen, Burlington, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex,
Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, and Union Counties for
Public Assistance.
    Bergen, Burlington, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex,
Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, and Union Counties for
emergency protective measures, (Category B), including snow
assistance, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous
48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period.
    All counties within the State of New Jersey are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-3426 Filed 2-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37308-37309]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14108-001]

Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; Notice of Intent To
File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and
Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 14108-001.
    c. Date Filed: May 7, 2014.
    d. Submitted By: Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (Western
Minnesota).
    e. Name of Project: Mississippi River Lock and Dam No.15
Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Mississippi River, in Scott County, Iowa at an
existing lock and dam owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). The project would occupy 1.5 acres of federal lands
managed by the Corps.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Raymond Wahle, Missouri River
Energy Services, 3724 W. Avera Drive, P.O. Box 88920, Sioux Falls,
South Dakota 57109; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Patrick Ely at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Western Minnesota filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on May 7, 2014. Western Minnesota provided public
notice of its request on May 20, 2014. In a letter dated June 25, 2014,
the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Western
Minnesota's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c)
the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section
106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Western Minnesota as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Western Minnesota filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: June 25, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15406 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73387-73388]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23497]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98772; File No. SR-MIAX-2023-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 307, Position Limits

October 19, 2023.
    On April 21, 2023, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 307,
Position Limits, to establish a process for adjusting option position
limits following a stock split or reverse stock split in the underlying
security. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on

May 8, 2023.\3\ On June 14, 2023, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission received one comment
regarding the proposal.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97421 (May 2, 2023),
88 FR 29725 (May 8, 2023).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97727 (June 14,
2023), 88 FR 40366 (June 21, 2023). The Commission designated August
6, 2023, as the date by which the Commission shall approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove, the proposed rule change.
    \6\ See letter from Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Equities &
Options Market Structure, SIFMA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, dated July 5, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 2, 2023, the Commission instituted proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \7\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change. On September 26, 2023, the
Commission designated a longer period within which to determine to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\8\ On October 12, 2023,
the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-MIAX-2023-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-98541 (Sept. 26,
2023), 88 FR 67834 (Oct. 2, 2023). The Commission designated January
3, 2024, as the date by which the Commission would approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23497 Filed 10-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P