[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43711-43721]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM96-1-037; Order No. 587-V]

Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) amends its regulations to incorporate by reference the
latest version (Version 2.0) of certain business practice standards
adopted by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) of the North American
Energy Standards Board (NAESB) applicable to natural gas pipelines. In
addition, based on the minor corrections and errata made by NAESB and
reported to the Commission on May 4, 2012, the Commission will
incorporate by reference certain standards that it earlier proposed not
to

incorporate, as the revised standards no longer conflict with
Commission regulations. In this Final Rule, the Commission also
provides guidance on the criteria the Commission will use in deciding
whether to grant or deny requests for waivers or extensions of time and
modifies the compliance filing requirements to add transparency as to
where in the tariff incorporated standards may be found.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective August 27, 2012.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications in this rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

                            Table of Contents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background..............................................            2
II. Discussion.............................................           11
    A. Incorporation by Reference of the NAESB Standards...           11
    B. Incorporation of Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21........           17
    C. Other Standards Issues Raised by Commenters.........           21
        1. Gas-Electric Communication Standards............           21
        2. Interpretations of NAESB WGQ Standards..........           27
        3. Definition of Operating Capacity................           29
III. Implementation Schedule and Procedures for Waivers and           31
 Extension of Time.........................................
    A. Implementation Schedule.............................           33
    B. Waivers and Extensions of Time......................           38
    C. Comments on Implementation and Waiver Policy........           40
IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards.........           42
V. Information Collection Statement........................           43
VI. Environmental Analysis.................................           50
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act............................           51
VIII. Document Availability................................           55
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification..........           58
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller,
John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony T. Clark.

Final Rule

(Issued July 19, 2012)

    1. In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) amends its regulations at 18 CFR 284.12 to incorporate by
reference the latest version (Version 2.0) of certain business practice
standards adopted by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) of the North
American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) applicable to natural gas
pipelines including Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21 as modified by the
minor corrections and errata approved by NAESB. In the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking,\1\ the Commission proposed not to incorporate
Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21 because these standards conflicted with
Commission regulations. NAESB's minor corrections ensure consistency
between the standards and the Commission regulations and the Commission
will therefore incorporate the standards by reference. In this Final
Rule, the Commission also provides guidance on the criteria the
Commission will use in deciding whether to grant or deny requests for
waivers or extensions of time and modifies the compliance filing
requirements to add transparency as to where in the tariff incorporated
standards may be found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 77 FR 10415 (Feb. 22,
2012), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,686 (2012) (Version 2.0 NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Since 1996, the Commission has adopted regulations to
standardize the business practices and communication methodologies of
interstate natural gas pipelines to create a more integrated and
efficient pipeline grid. These regulations have been promulgated in the
Order No. 587 series of orders,\2\ wherein the Commission has
incorporated by reference standards for interstate natural gas pipeline
business practices and electronic communications that were developed
and adopted by NAESB's WGQ. Upon incorporation by reference, the
Version 2.0 Standards will become part of the Commission's regulations
and compliance with these standards by interstate natural gas pipelines
will become mandatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This series of orders began with the Commission's issuance
of Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,038 (1996). The
most recent order in this series is Order No. 587-U, issued on March
24, 2010, wherein the Commission incorporated by reference the
Version 1.9 WGQ Business Practice Standards. Standards for Business
Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587-U, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,307 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On March 4, 2011, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission
that it had adopted and ratified Version 2.0 of its business practice
standards applicable to natural gas pipelines. The Version 2.0
Standards revised the Version 1.9 Standards to include: (1) Standards
to support gas-electric interdependency; (2) standards created for
Capacity Release redesign due to the elimination of Electronic Data
Interchange (EDI) for Capacity Release Upload information; (3)
standards to support the Electronic Delivery Mechanism (EDM); (4)
standards to support the Customer Security Administration (CSA)
Process; (5) standards for pipeline postings of information regarding
waste heat; and

(6) minor technical maintenance revisions designed to more efficiently
process wholesale natural gas transactions.
    4. On June 28, 2011, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission
that it had made modifications to the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards
to correct various minor errors. These errata corrections make minor
revisions to the NAESB WGQ Standards and Data Elements including
revisions to the: (1) Datasets for Additional Standards; (2) Nomination
Related Datasets; (3) Flowing Gas Related Standards; (4) Invoicing
Related Datasets; (5) EDM Related Standards; and (6) Capacity Release
Related Standards and Datasets.
    5. Further, on October 11, 2011, NAESB filed a report informing the
Commission that it had made additional modifications to the NAESB WGQ
Version 2.0 Standards to correct various minor errors in the
Nominations Related and Capacity Release Related Datasets.
    6. On December 22, 2011, NAESB reported to the Commission that it
had made additional modifications to the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0
Standards to correct various minor errors. The errata corrections make
minor revisions to the NAESB WGQ Standards and Datasets including
revisions to the: (1) Nominations Related Datasets; (2) Capacity
Release Related Datasets; and (3) Quadrant Electronic Delivery
Mechanism Related Standards.
    7. Consistent with its practice in past rulemakings where the
Commission found benefits in incorporating by reference NAESB's
business practice standards,\3\ the Commission issued the Version 2.0
NOPR, which proposed to amend the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR
284.12 to incorporate by reference the latest version of certain
business practice standards adopted by NAESB's WGQ applicable to
natural gas pipelines.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., Order No. 587, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,038 at
30,059, where the Commission found that the adoption of consensus
standards is appropriate because the consensus process helps ensure
the reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the standards
draw support from a broad spectrum of industry participants
representing all segments of the industry. The Commission also noted
that, because the industry has to conduct business under these
standards, the Commission's regulations should reflect those
standards that have the widest possible support. In section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTT&AA), Congress affirmatively requires federal agencies to use
technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standards
organizations, like NAESB, as a means to carry out policy objectives
or activities. These findings remain valid.
    \4\ See supra n.1. In its Version 2.0 Standards, the WGQ made
the following changes to its Version 1.9 Standards:
    It revised Principle 4.1.32; Definitions 0.2.1, 0.2.2, 0.2.3,
5.2.1, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5; Standards 0.3.11 through 0.3.15, 2.3.34,
4.3.16, 4.3.23, 4.3.28, 4.3.29, 4.3.54, 5.3.1 through 5.3.14,
5.3.16, 5.3.19 through 5.3.21, 5.3.24 through 5.3.27, 5.3.31 through
5.3.33, 5.3.38, 5.3.42, 5.3.48, 5.3.50, 5.3.51, 5.3.60, 5.3.62,
5.3.62a, and 5.3.63 through 5.3.69; and Datasets 1.4.1 through
1.4.6, 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.6, 2.4.7, 3.4.1, 3.4.4, 5.4.14
through 5.4.17, and 5.4.20 through 5.4.22.
    It added Definition 0.2.4; Standards 0.3.18 through 0.3.22,
4.3.100 through 4.3.102, 5.3.70 through 5.3.72; and Datasets 0.4.2,
0.4.3, and 5.4.24 through 5.4.27.
     It deleted Standards 5.3.17, 5.3.30, 5.3.43, and 5.3.61; and
Datasets 5.4.1 through 5.4.13, 5.4.18, and 5.4.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The Version 2.0 NOPR proposed not to incorporate by reference
Standard 0.3.19, because the Commission found it inconsistent with the
requirements of 18 CFR 284.13(d), which does not permit a pipeline to
limit the posting of available capacity to a limited number of points,
segments, or zones, but requires posting at all receipt and delivery
points and on the mainline. Additionally, the Version 2.0 NOPR proposed
not to incorporate by reference Standard 0.3.21, because 18 CFR
284.13(d) does not limit the posting of information posting to only two
cycles but requires the posting of capacity availability and scheduled
capacity ``whenever capacity is scheduled.'' Also, consistent with past
practice, the Commission proposed not to incorporate Standards 4.3.4
and 10.3.2 regarding record retention requirements,\5\ NAESB's
interpretations of its standards,\6\ its optional contracts,\7\ and the
WEQ/WGQ eTariff Related Standard.\8\ The Commission further provided
guidance regarding the procedures for pipelines to incorporate the
standards into their tariffs and explained its policy regarding
pipeline requests for waiver or extension of time to comply with the
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Standards for Business Practices of Interstate
Natural Gas Pipelines, Final Rule, Order No. 587-T, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,289, at P 5 & n.9 (2009).
    \6\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities, Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,299,
at n.16 (2009).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ See Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,276 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. In response to the Version 2.0 NOPR, comments were filed by six
commenters.\9\ The comments expressed a variety of views, including
requests for clarification and modification of the Commission's policy
on extensions of time to comply with NAESB WGQ Standards. Among the
comments filed with the Commission were comments from NAESB explaining
that its WGQ Executive Committee was in the process of voting on two
standards to rectify the inconsistency with respect to Standards 0.3.19
and 0.3.21 noted by the Commission in the Version 2.0 NOPR. On May 4,
2012, NAESB filed a status report informing the Commission that it had
finalized the two corrections to Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the Appendix to this Final Rule, we identify all the
commenters that filed comments in response to the Version 2.0 NOPR,
along with the abbreviations we are using in this Final Rule to
identify these commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. On May 8, 2012, the Commission issued a notice providing
interested parties an opportunity to file comments with respect to the
two corrected standards adopted by NAESB and whether the Commission
should incorporate these revised standards into its regulations.\10\ In
response to this notice, three comments were filed, all of which
supported the Commission's incorporation of the revised standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, 77 FR 28331 (May 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Incorporation by Reference of the NAESB Standards

    11. After a review of the comments filed in response to the Version
2.0 NOPR, the Commission is amending part 284 of its regulations to
incorporate by reference Version 2.0 of the NAESB WGQ's consensus
standards, including corrected Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In addition, as discussed in the Version 2.0 NOPR and
above, we are not incorporating by reference Standards 4.3.4 and
10.3.2, NAESB's interpretation of its standards, its optional
contracts, or the WEQ/WGQ eTariff Related Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 standards include new and modified
business practice standards to support gas-electric interdependency by
further defining the roles and responsibilities of each participant
under the Gas/Electric Operational Communication Standards promulgated
in Order No. 698,\12\ and giving more details on what is included in
various notices through the creation of 15 new notice types so that
public utilities may more easily identify relevant pipelines' system
conditions. The new notice types are used in the Notices section of
pipelines' Informational Postings on their Web sites and are used to
notify shippers and interested parties of intraday bumps, operational
flow orders, and other critical information by email or other
electronic methods. This increase in granularity will afford pipelines
greater flexibility in assigning specific designations to the notices
and will allow shippers and other interested stakeholders to filter
pipeline notices more effectively, so that they can focus

on specific types of notices they deem important, while ignoring
notices they deem irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    13. The revised standards also include revisions to facilitate the
Commission's FY 2009-2014 Strategic Plan \13\ objective of evaluating
the feasibility of installing waste heat recovery systems as a way to
promote the efficient design and operation of jurisdictional natural
gas facilities by specifying the location where such information will
be posted on pipelines' Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Strategic Plan, FY
2009-2014 at 25. http://www.ferc.gov/about/strat-docs/FY-09-14-strat-plan-print.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. To implement these standards, natural gas pipelines will be
required to file tariff sheets to reflect the changed standards by
October 1, 2012, to take effect on December 1, 2012, and they will be
required to comply with these standards on and after December 1, 2012.
    15. NAESB used its consensus procedures to develop and approve the
Version 2.0 Standards.\14\ As the Commission found in Order No. 587,
the adoption of consensus standards is appropriate because the
consensus process helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by
requiring that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of
industry participants representing all segments of the industry.
Moreover, 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
NTT&AA,\15\ 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 determined by the agencies unless an agency determines that
the use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This process first requires a super-majority vote of 17 out
of 25 members of the WGQ's Executive Committee with support from at
least two members from each of the five industry segments--
Distributors, End Users, Pipelines, Producers, and Services
(including marketers and computer service providers). For final
approval, 67 percent of the WGQ's general membership voting must
ratify the standards.
    \15\ See n.3 supra.
    \16\ Public Law 104-113, Sec.  12(d), 110 Stat. 775 (1996), 15
U.S.C. 272 note (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. The comments on the Version 2.0 NOPR generally supported the
adoption of the standards. In the discussion below, we will address the
issues raised in the comments.

B. Incorporation of Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21

    17. In the Version 2.0 NOPR, the Commission found that two of the
proposed standards, WGQ Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21, as originally
adopted by the WGQ appeared to be inconsistent with the Commission's
posting regulations in 18 CFR 284.13(d).\17\ For this reason, the
Commission proposed in the Version 2.0 NOPR not to incorporate these
standards by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Filings
    18. On May 4, 2012, NAESB filed a status report informing the
Commission that it had finalized corrections to the two standards,
which it believed met the Commission's objections to the original
standards.\18\ In response to the Commission's notice inviting comments
on NAESB's corrections, INGAA, Southern Star, and AGA each filed
comments expressing support for incorporation by reference of the
corrected standards.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NAESB corrections MC12005 and MC12006.
    \19\ INGAA Supplemental Comments at 2, Southern Star
Supplemental Comments at 2, AGA Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    19. Based on the modifications made by NAESB WGQ, the Commission
will incorporate by reference the modified standards, as they no longer
conflict with the Commission's regulations. As noted in the Version 2.0
NOPR, the original NAESB WGQ Version Standard 0.3.19 allowed the
pipeline to choose whether to post Operationally Available Capacity,
Operating Capacity, and Total Scheduled Quantity at either a point,
segment or zone level.\20\ This standard conflicted with section
284.13(d) \21\ of the regulations that does not permit the pipeline to
limit the posting to a point, segment, or zone, but requires posting at
all receipt and delivery points and on the mainline.\22\ The revised
Standard 0.3.19 \23\ removed the provision permitting the pipeline to
choose the level at which it reports and therefore no longer conflicts
with section 284.13(d) \24\ of our regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The original NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standard 0.3.19 stated:
Operationally Available Capacity (OAC), Operating Capacity (OPC) and
Total Scheduled Quantity (TSQ) are associated information and should
be reported at the same level. Transportation Service Providers
should report OAC, OPC and TSQ at, at least one of, point, segment
or zone level.
    \21\ See supra n.17.
    \22\ Section 284.13(d) states that the pipeline must post
``information relevant to the availability of all transportation
services whenever capacity is scheduled, including, but not limited
to, the availability of capacity at receipt points, on the mainline,
at delivery points, and in storage fields.''
    \23\ The revised Standard reads: Operationally Available
Capacity (OAC), Operating Capacity (OPC) and Total Scheduled
Quantity (TSQ) are associated information and should be reported at
the same level of detail.''
    \24\ See supra n.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. The original NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standard 0.3.21 required the
posting of total scheduled quantity and operationally available
capacity information only at the timely and evening nominations
cycles.\25\ Section 284.13(d), however, does not limit the posting to
only two cycles but requires the posting of capacity availability and
scheduled capacity ``whenever capacity is scheduled.'' Revised Standard
0.3.21 provides, consistent with the regulation, that the required
information ``should be updated by the Transportation Service Provider
to reflect scheduling changes and be reported promptly whenever
capacity is scheduled.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The original NAESB WGQ Standard 0.3.21 states: The Total
Scheduled Quantity and the Operationally Available Capacity
information should be updated by the Transportation Service Provider
to reflect scheduling changes and be reported promptly following the
scheduling deadline associated with the timely and evening
nominations cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Other Standards Issues Raised by Commenters

1. Gas-Electric Communication Standards
    21. The Commission incorporated by reference the NAESB Wholesale
Electric Quadrant (WEQ) and WGQ Gas/Electric Coordination Standards in
Order Nos. 698 and 698-A \26\ to ensure that pipelines have relevant
planning information to assist in maintaining the operational integrity
and reliability of pipeline service, as well as to provide gas-fired
power plant operators with information as to whether hourly flow
deviations can be honored.\27\ In the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards,
NAESB modified and developed additional standards to further enhance
that coordination. NAESB made modifications to its WGQ Standards

4.3.28, 4.3.29 and 5.3.38 and developed new Standards 5.3.70 and 5.3.71
to enhance the clarity of the content and format of critical, non-
critical, and planned service outage notices issued by pipelines. NAESB
also modified the existing gas-electric coordination WGQ Standards
0.2.1 through 0.2.3, 0.3.11, through 0.3.15; and created a new Standard
0.2.4 to further define the roles and responsibilities of each
participant under the Gas/Electric Operational Communication Standards
promulgated in Order No. 698. As explained in the Version 2.0 NOPR,\28\
NAESB also modified WGQ Standard 0.3.14 to change the parties to whom
pipelines are required to provide notification of operational flow
orders and other critical notices. Under the Version 2.0 Standards,
pipelines are now required to provide notification to Balancing
Authorities and/or Reliability Coordinators, and Power Plant Gas
Coordinators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra n.12.
    \27\ These standards are more fully summarized in the Version
2.0 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,686 at P 7.
    \28\ Id. P 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
    22. Spectra Entities state that the Version 2.0 communication
standards designed to enhance communication clarity are a good step on
the path towards increasing electric reliability.\29\ However, they
assert that enhancement of communication and coordination of scheduling
are not all that is required to ensure gas supplies to gas-fired
generation. Spectra Entities state that it is also necessary that firm
pipeline capacity is available and contracted to supply generation.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Commenters on the Version 2.0 NOPR, and the abbreviations
used to identify them, are listed in the Appendix.
    \30\ Spectra Entities Comments at 2, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. NERC expressed general support for the modifications to
Standard 0.3.14 that changed the parties to whom pipelines are required
to provide notification of operational flow orders and other critical
notices. However, NERC raises a concern about an ambiguity in the
language of the standard as modified and urges the Commission to
clarify that pipelines must provide notices of operational flow orders
and other critical matters to both Balancing Authorities and
Reliability Coordinators. NERC states that, with this clarification, it
supports the standard as a step in the right direction that will help
support the reliability of the bulk power system.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ NERC Comments at 3, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    24. Standard 0.3.14 states:

    A Transportation Service Provider should provide Balancing
Authorities (BA) and/or Reliability Coordinators (RC) and Power
Plant Gas Coordinators (PPGC) with notification of operational flow
orders and other critical notices through the PPGC's choice of
Electronic Notice Delivery mechanism(s) as set forth in NAESB WGQ
Standard Nos. 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.3.35-5.3.38.

    25. We interpret this standard to include both Balancing
Authorities and Reliability Coordinators as affected parties under the
Commission regulations who are eligible to request from the pipeline
and receive direct notification through email or Electronic Data
Interchange of operational flow orders and other critical notices.\32\
If both a Balancing Authority and Reliability Coordinator in a relevant
area request such notification, then the pipeline must provide it. The
Commission expects Balancing Authorities and Reliability Coordinators
to request such notification whenever necessary to ensure the
reliability of their systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ This standard refers to the provision of these notices by
email or Electronic Data Interchange under NAESB standards 5.3.35-
5.3.38. Information regarding operational flow orders and other
critical notices also is publicly available on the pipelines' Web
sites pursuant to the postings required by 18 CFR 284.12 (b) (3)
(vi) and Standards 4.3.27-4.3.29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Spectra's concern with the availability of firm pipeline
capacity to serve gas-fired generators is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
2. Interpretations of NAESB WGQ Standards
    27. INGAA notes that the Commission's policy is not to incorporate
NAESB's interpretation of its standards into the Commission's
regulations.\33\ INGAA recognizes that the Commission's view is that,
while interpretations may provide useful guidance, they are not
determinative and the Commission does not require pipelines to comply
with NAESB's interpretations.\34\ But INGAA states that the
interpretations can be instructive to the industry on how to implement
the standards. Further, INGAA suggests that the interpretations should
be given appropriate deference in circumstance in which pipelines elect
to rely on the interpretations to implement the standards. INGAA
contends that the written interpretations of the NAESB WGQ Standards go
through the same comment and voting process as other standards
published by NAESB. INGAA requests clarification that pipelines that
adhere to the NAESB WGQ Interpretations published with Version 2.0,
including any associated errata subject to the Commission's final order
in this docket, should be found to be in compliance with the
standards.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ INGAA Comments at 3 (citing Standards for Business
Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities, Order
No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,299 at n.16).
    \34\ Id. (citing Version 2.0 NOPR at 18).
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    28. As stated in the Version 2.0 NOPR, while NAESB's
interpretations may provide useful guidance, historically, the
Commission's practice has been to not find them determinative and it
has not required pipelines to comply with them. Because pipelines are
not required to comply with the interpretations, it is not appropriate
to include them in the regulations, under which compliance is
mandatory. While the Commission has found in the past, and will
continue to find, the interpretations a useful interpretative guide to
the meaning of standards,\36\ we cannot guarantee that the Commission
will agree with an interpretation that is not consistent with
Commission regulations or with the language of the standards.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc., 98 FERC ] 61,019,
at 61,057 (2002) (relying on GISB's (now NAESB) interpretation); El
Paso Natural Gas Company, 97 FERC ] 61,174, at 61,816 (2001)
(recommending parties seek an interpretation of a standard so the
record will reflect GISB's construction of the standard); Ozark Gas
Transmission System, 79 FERC ] 61,222, at 62,006 (1997) (granting
rehearing based, in part, on interpretation).
    \37\ See, e.g., Standards for Business Practices of Interstate
Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587-Q, 100 FERC ] 61,105, at P 16
(2002) (interpreting NAESB standard and not deferring to a request
to NAESB); ANR Pipeline Co., 80 FERC ] 61,210, at 61,833 (1997)
(declining to defer in advance to any GISB interpretation, although
suggesting that the pipeline obtain such an interpretation); Great
Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership, 79 FERC ] 61,194, at
61,911 (1997) (declining to adopt an interpretation at odds with
standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Definition of Operating Capacity
    29. INGAA suggests that NAESB developed the term ``Operating
Capacity,'' as used in NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standard 0.3.19 and
related standards, to comply with a pipeline's requirement to post
``design capacity,'' per 18 CFR 284.13(d).\38\ INGAA contends that the
term ``Operating Capacity,'' and related business standards and data
set, were created with industry support and approved by the full NAESB
process. Further, INGAA argues that for the purposes of these NAESB
Standards, the terms ``Operating Capacity,'' as defined by NAESB, and
``design capacity'' are interchangeable. Accordingly, INGAA requests
that the Commission clarify

that pipelines that post ``Operating Capacity'' as defined by NAESB
Standards are in compliance with the Commission's requirement for
pipelines to post ``design capacity,'' per the requirements of 18 CFR
284.13(d).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ NAESB Standard 0.3.18 states in part: ``Operating Capacity
(OPC) should be reported as the total capacity which could be
scheduled at (or through) the identified point, segment or zone in
the indicated direction of flow.''
    \39\ INGAA Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    30. We will deny INGAA's request for clarification. NAESB defines
Operating Capacity as ``the total capacity which could be scheduled at
(or through) the identified point, segment or zone in the indicated
direction of flow.'' \40\ The Commission's information posting
requirements in section 284.13(d), however, require pipelines to post
``Design Capacity,'' not operating capacity. It is not clear that
NAESB's term ``Operating Capacity,'' although useful, is equivalent to
the term ``Design Capacity'' used in the Commission regulations.\41\ We
therefore request that the industry, through NAESB, consider whether
the two terms are functionally equivalent or specify different types of
information and to include this information in its next version update.
Should the industry conclude the terms are not equivalent, NAESB should
make appropriate revisions to the standards in NAESB's next version by
adding a design capacity as a separate reporting category. If industry
members believe that operating capacity is a more useful measure than
design capacity, they will need to request a revision of 284.13(d).
While these issues are being considered, we will not require pipelines
to make changes to their current posting procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NAESB WGQ Standard No. 0.4.2--Operational Capacity.
    \41\ For example, while pipelines that post both design and
operating capacity, often report the same number for both types of
capacity, they may sometimes report differences between operating
and design capacity. For example, on June 21, 2012, Northwest
Pipeline posted at its Baker Compressor Decreasing point (177)
design capacity of 491,000, and Operating Capacity of 700,000. See,
e.g., Northwest Pipeline GP, Operationally Available Capacity Report
Posting Date/Time: 6/21/2012 8:15 p.m. (http://www.northwest.williams.com/NWP_Portal/CapacityResultsScrollable.action). See also El Paso Natural Gas Co.,
138 FERC ] 61,215 (2012) (differentiating between certificated
capacity and sustainable capacity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Implementation Schedule and Procedures for Waivers and Extension
of Time

    31. In the Version 2.0 NOPR, the Commission proposed an
implementation schedule that would require compliance with the NAESB
WGQ Version 2.0 Standards beginning on the first day of the month after
the fourth full month following issuance of the final rule.\42\ To
clarify, the Commission gave the example that, if the final rule were
issued on February 17, 2012, compliance would be required beginning on
July 1, 2012.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Version 2.0 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,686 at P 24.
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. The Commission also proposed in the Version 2.0 NOPR to
increase the transparency of the pipelines' incorporation by reference
of the NAESB WGQ Standards so that shippers and the Commission will
know which tariff provisions implements each standard as well as the
status of each standard.\44\ To accomplish this, the Commission gave
proposed instructions on how pipelines should designate sections in
their tariff filings.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id. P 25.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Implementation Schedule

    33. In their comments on the Version 2.0 NOPR, AGA and Southern
Star voice support for prompt implementation of the standards.\46\
INGAA requests that the Commission revise its implementation
requirements to permit a pipeline to file its listing of which tariff
provisions implement each NAESB standard and the status of each NAESB
standard as part of either a sheet-based or section-based tariff.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ AGA Comments at 4-5, Southern Star Comments at 2.
    \47\ INGAA Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Determination
    34. The Commission will require natural gas pipelines to comply
with the NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standards that we are incorporating by
reference in this Final Rule beginning on December 1, 2012. We are
requiring this implementation schedule to give the natural gas
pipelines subject to these standards adequate time to implement these
changes. In addition, pipelines must file tariff records to reflect the
changed standards by October 1, 2012.
    35. We will grant INGAA's request for clarification and allow sheet
based solutions. As noted in Order No. 714, companies may determine to
structure their tariffs either using the existing tariff sheet format
or as sections.\48\ The intent of the implementation schedule proposed
in the Version 2.0 NOPR was not to preclude sheet based solutions.
Accordingly, we will accept sheet-based alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Order No. 714, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,276 at P 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. In addition, as proposed in the Version 2.0 NOPR, the
Commission is also revising the compliance filing requirements to
increase the transparency of the pipelines' incorporation by reference
of the NAESB WGQ Standards so that shippers and the Commission will
know which tariff provision(s) implements each standard as well as the
status of each standard.
    (1) The pipelines must designate a single tariff section or tariff
sheet(s) under which every NAESB standard is listed.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ This section should be a separate tariff record under the
Commission's electronic tariff filing requirements and is to be
filed electronically using the eTariff portal using the Type of
Filing Code 580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) For each standard, each pipeline must specify in the tariff
section or tariff sheet(s) listing all the NAESB standards:
    (a) Whether the standard is incorporated by reference;
    (b) For those standards not incorporated by reference, the tariff
provision that complies with the standard; \50\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ For example, pipelines are required to include the full
text of the NAESB nomination and capacity release timeline standards
(WGQ Standards 1.3.2(i-v) and 5.3.2) in their tariffs. Order No.
587-U, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,307 at P 39 & n.42. The pipeline
would indicate which tariff provision complies with each of these
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) A statement identifying any standards for which the pipeline
has been granted a waiver, extension of time, or other variance with
respect to compliance with the standard.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Shippers can use the Commission's electronic tariff system
to locate the tariff record containing the NAESB standards, which
will indicate the docket in which any waiver or extension of time
was granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) If the pipeline is requesting a continuation of an existing
waiver or extension of time, it must include a table in its transmittal
letter that states the standard for which a waiver or extension of time
was granted, and the docket number or order citation to the proceeding
in which the waiver or extension was granted.
    37. This information will give Commission staff and all shippers a
common location that identifies the manner in which the pipeline is
incorporating all the NAESB WGQ Standards and the standards with which
it is required to comply. The Commission will post on its eLibrary Web
site (under Docket No. RM96-1-037) a sample tariff format, to provide
filers an illustrative example to aid them in preparing their
compliance filings.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Waivers and Extensions of Time

    38. As discussed in the Version 2.0 NOPR, in previous compliance
proceedings there has been a marked increase in the number of requests
for waivers or for extensions of time to comply with standards. The

Commission's orders on these requests have developed a set of general
principles that the Commission intends to follow in reviewing such
requests in the future.\53\ Thus, as discussed in the Version 2.0 NOPR
and consistent with existing precedent, the Commission clarifies its
policy regarding requests for waivers and extensions of time as well as
the information that must accompany such requests as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural
Gas Pipelines, compliance order, 133 FERC ] 61,096, at P 4 (October
28 Order), further compliance order, 133 FERC ] 61,185, at P 4
(2010) (November 30 Order); B-R Pipeline Co., 128 FERC ] 61,126
(2009) (B-R Pipeline).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) All waivers and extensions of time will be granted only in
reference to the individual set of NAESB standards being adopted (in
this case NAESB WGQ's Version 2.0 Standards). Pipelines will need to
seek renewal of any such waivers or extensions for each version of the
standards the Commission adopts.\54\ We will follow this practice to
avoid an automatic renewal without oversight of a waiver or extension
in a situation where there may no longer be a need to continue the
waiver or extension. If circumstances continue to support the need for
a waiver or extension, the pipeline can detail those circumstances to
the Commission in a new request for waiver or extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In B-R Pipeline, 128 FERC ] 61,126 at P 6, the Commission
stated that ``each time the Commission adopts new versions of [the]
standards * * * pipelines must request waiver [or extension of time]
of the new standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Waivers or extensions of time will not be granted for standards
that merely describe the process by which a pipeline must perform a
business function, if it performs that function, and where the standard
does not require the pipeline to perform the business function.\55\ In
such a case, as long as the pipeline does not perform the business
function, it does not trigger a requirement to comply with the standard
and hence no waiver or extension of time is required. If, however, the
pipeline begins performing the business function, the standard(s) will
already be in its tariff and the pipeline will be required to comply
with the standard(s).\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ October 28 Order, 133 FERC ] 61,096 at P 9; November 30
Order, 133 FERC ] 61,185 at P 7.
    \56\ As an example, Standard 4.3.96 requires pipelines to
provide hourly gas quality information ``to the extent that the TSP
is required to do so in its tariff or general terms and conditions,
a settlement agreement, or by order of an applicable regulatory
authority.'' A pipeline that is not required to provide hourly gas
quality information, therefore, does not require a waiver or
extension of time for compliance with this standard, because the
standard imposes no obligation on the pipeline to comply with the
standard until it provides hourly gas quality information. See
October 28 Order, 133 FERC ] 61,096 at P 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) If a pipeline is seeking a renewal of a waiver or extension of
time request, it must justify why the waiver or extension should remain
in force and it must provide a citation to an order and docket number
of the proceeding in which the initial waiver or extension of time was
granted.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Order No. 587-U, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,307 at PP 38-
39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The Commission ordinarily will decline to grant waivers in
cases where pipelines maintain they should not be required to incur the
costs of implementing standards shippers are not interested in using.
Instead, the Commission's approach to these requests will be to grant
the pipeline an extension of time for compliance until 60 days after
the pipeline receives a request to comply with the standard.\58\
Waivers are justified only when the pipeline can demonstrate that there
is good cause not to require the implementation of a standard, even
though shippers want to use the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See T.W. Phillips Pipeline Corp., 137 FERC ] 61,104, at P
11 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) The Commission generally will not entertain waiver or extension
of time requests for NAESB WGQ Definitions (x.2.z Standards). The NAESB
WGQ Definitions specify and elucidate specific terms of generally
applicable business practices and do not require a pipeline to perform
any action or incur expense to comply with such Definitions. The
Commission sees a potential for problems arising if it allows a
pipeline to substitute its own definitions for the consensus
definitions developed in the NAESB process.
    39. In addition, to provide guidance to pipelines in filing
requests for waivers or extensions of time, the Commission will explain
its policy regarding waivers of the following four general categories
of NAESB standards: (1) Business practice standards; (2) requirements
to conduct business electronically using the Internet (Internet
Business Standards); (3) Commission Internet posting requirements
(Internet Posting Standards); and (4) requirements to conduct computer-
to-computer transactions using EDI. It is important for pipelines to
identify clearly in their filings the specific standards from which
they are seeking waivers or extensions of time. In particular,
pipelines need to be clear as to whether they are requesting waivers of
the Internet Business Standards or the EDI Standards:
    (1) Waivers or Extensions of Time To Comply With Business Practice
Standards. Waivers or extensions of time to comply with business
practice standards will generally be denied because these standards
establish the basic principles on which business is required to be
conducted. Nonetheless, if a pipeline believes such a waiver or
extension of time to comply is justified, it must detail specific
reasons why it seeks the waiver or extension of time to comply with the
standard and address alternative methods by which it could comply with
the objectives of the standard.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Carolina Gas Transmission Corp., 131 FERC ] 61,211, at
P 4 (2010); MoGas Pipeline LLC, 131 FERC ] 61,251, at P 7 (2010);
Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc., 132 FERC ] 61,262, at P 8
(2010) (requiring small pipelines to use manual methods of
implementing index-based capacity releases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Waivers or Extensions of Time To Comply With the Internet
Business Standards. Waivers or extensions of time to comply with the
requirement to conduct business over the Internet generally will be
granted based on a pipeline's individual circumstances, such as the
size of the pipeline, the number of shippers, its ability to provide
electronic services, the demand for such services, and alternative
means by which the pipeline conducts the business practice. For smaller
pipelines, the Commission has granted waivers of the Internet Business
Standards when such pipelines have shown that complying with such
standards would prove unduly burdensome.\60\ For larger pipelines, the
Commission has rarely granted waivers or extensions of time to comply
with the Internet Business Standards.\61\ However, if a pipeline can
demonstrate that shippers are not using a standard, then the Commission
generally will grant an extension of time to comply. Such an extension
of time ensures that pipelines do not needlessly have to spend money
revamping computer services that shippers do not use while, at the same
time, ensuring that shippers have access to such services if they need
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ October 28 Order, 133 FERC ] 61,096 at PP 17-18; November
30 Order, 133 FERC ] 61,185 at P 9.
    \61\ October 28 Order, 133 FERC ] 61,096 at PP 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Waivers or Extensions of Time To Comply With Internet Posting
Standards. The Commission rarely grants waivers or extensions of time
to comply with the posting requirements because posting of this
information is required by the Commission's regulations. The cost of
maintaining and posting information on an Internet Web site is not
great even for smaller pipelines.
    (4) Waivers or Extensions of Time To Comply With EDI Standards. As

discussed in the Version 2.0 NOPR,\62\ the Commission generally will
grant waivers or extensions of time to comply with the EDI requirements
based on a pipeline's individual circumstances, such as the size of the
pipeline, the number of shippers, its ability to provide electronic
services, the demand for such services, and alternative means by which
the pipeline conducts the business practice. For smaller pipelines, the
Commission generally grants waivers of the EDI Standards when such
pipelines have shown that complying with such standards would prove
unduly burdensome.\63\ For larger pipelines on which shippers are not
using a standard, in lieu of an outright waiver, the Commission
generally will grant an extension of time until such time as a request
is made to use EDI.\64\ As with the EDI requirements relating to
capacity releases,\65\ NAESB also can review whether certain business
transactions still need to be available through EDI, given the lack of
usage, and pipelines can also seek such revisions from NAESB for EDI
standards whose upkeep no is longer cost justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Version 2.0 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,686 at P 27.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ See supra n.60; Texas Eastern Transmission LP., 100 FERC ]
61,364 (2002) (granting an extension of time for unused EDI
datasets, but requiring compliance with datasets for publicly
available capacity release information).
    \65\ See Version 2.0 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,686 at P 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comments on Implementation and Waiver Policy

    40. MidAmerican filed the only comment on these policies. It argues
that 60 days is too short a time period to comply with requests for EDI
standards, and recommends that the Commission allow pipelines up to 90
days to comply with a shipper request to implement an EDI dataset not
currently supported by the pipeline. MidAmerican argues that the that
90 days is a more reasonable amount of time for compliance, given the
technological requirements of the NAESB WGQ EDI related data sets.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ MidAmerican Comments at 2, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. The Commission cannot determine with certainty exactly how long
it will take each pipeline to comply with each individual NAESB WGQ
Version 2.0 Standard as this varies, depending on each pipeline's
unique circumstances. The policy guidance we are giving in this Final
Rule offers a reasonable general rule for meeting compliance
obligations that balances both shippers' needs for the Business
Practices and provides a reasonable amount of time for the pipelines to
comply with the NAESB WGQ Standards. To the extent a pipeline's unique
circumstances dictate that it requires additional time to implement a
given NAESB WGQ Version 2.0 Standard, the pipeline may raise such
issues in its compliance filing or in a request for waiver or
extensions of time, so that its shippers will have an opportunity to
intervene and raise any concerns with the pipeline's proposals.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See, e.g., WestGas InterState, Inc., 130 FERC ] 61,165, at
P 4 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

    42. In section 12(d) of NTT&AA, 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 determined by the agencies unless
use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.\68\ 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 February 16, 2012, the
Commission issued the Version 2.0 NOPR, which proposed to incorporate
by reference NAESB's Version 2.0 Standards. The Commission has taken
the comments on the Version 2.0 NOPR into account in fashioning this
Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See supra n.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Information Collection Statement

    43. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations require
approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rules. Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will
assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents
subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for
failing to respond to these collections of information unless the
collections of information display a valid OMB control number.
    44. This Final Rule amends the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR
284.12 to incorporate by reference the latest version (Version 2.0) of
certain business practice standards adopted by NAESB's WGQ applicable
to natural gas pipelines including Standards 0.3.19 and 0.3.21 as
modified by the minor corrections and errata approved by NAESB. In this
Final Rule, the Commission also provides guidance on the criteria the
Commission will use in deciding whether to grant or deny requests for
waivers or extensions of time and modifies the compliance filing
requirements to add transparency as to where in the tariff incorporated
standards may be found.
    45. Under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995,\69\ the reporting requirements in this rulemaking will be
submitted to OMB for review. OMB elected to take no action on the
Version 2.0 NOPR, and instead deferred its approval until review of the
Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. The Commission solicited comments on the need for this
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any
suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the
use of automated information techniques. No comments were filed raising
any objections to the burden estimate presented in the WGQ Version 2.0
NOPR. Accordingly, we will use that same burden estimate in this Final
Rule.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                 Data collection                     Number of     responses per     Hours per     Total number
                                                    respondents     respondent       response        of hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-545 \70\...................................             161               1              10           1,610
FERC-549C \71\..................................             161               1              22           3,542
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............           5,152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collections.
    (Reporting and Recordkeeping, If Appropriate) = 5,152.
    Information Collection Costs: The Commission projects the average
annualized cost of compliance with these regulations to be the
following: \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Data collection FERC-545 covers rate change filings made by
natural gas pipelines, including tariff changes (OMB Control No.
1902-0154).
    \71\ Data collection FERC-549C covers Standards for Business
Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines (OMB Control No. 1902-
0174).
    \72\ The total annualized cost for the two information
collections is $303,968. This number is reached by multiplying the
total hours to prepare a response (hours) by an hourly wage estimate
of $59 (a composite estimate that includes legal, technical and
support staff wages and benefits obtained from the Bureau of Labor
Statistic data at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm and
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm rates). $303,968 = $59
x 5,152.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          FERC-545          FERC-549C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Capital/Startup Costs....           $94,990          $208,978
Annualized Costs (Operations &                     N/A               N/A
 Maintenance).......................
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total Annualized Costs..........            94,990           208,978
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Cost for all Respondents = $303,968.
    47. OMB regulations \73\ require OMB to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is
submitting notification of this proposed rule to OMB. These information
collections are mandatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rates Change (Non-Formal);
FERC-549C, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines.
    Action: Proposed collection.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0154, 1902-0174.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, (i.e., Natural Gas
Pipelines, applicable to only a few small businesses.) Although the
intraday reporting requirements will affect electric plant operators,
the Commission is not imposing the reporting burden of adopting these
standards on those entities.
    Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation (business
procedures, capital/start-up).
    Necessity of Information: The requirements in this Final Rule will
upgrade the Commission's current business practices and communication
standards by specifically: (1) Adding and revising standards allowing
the elimination of EDI requirements for Capacity Release Upload
information; (2) creating and modifying existing information posting
requirements for Web sites and browsers; (3) requiring pipelines to
provide security information; (4) requiring the posting of information
on waste heat recovery feasibility on the Internet; (5) modifying
pipeline notice content and creating new pipeline notice types; and (6)
creating standards to ensure NAESB data format is consistent with other
data reporting via the Internet by using CSV.
    The implementation of these data requirements will provide
additional transparency to informational posting Web sites and will
improve communication standards, including gas-electric communications.
The implementation of these standards and regulations will promote the
additional efficiency and reliability of the gas industry's operations
thereby helping the Commission to carry out its responsibilities under
the Natural Gas Act of promoting the efficiency and reliability of the
gas industry's operations. In addition, the Commission's Office of
Enforcement will use the data for general industry oversight.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the requirements
pertaining to business practices of natural gas pipelines and made a
preliminary determination that the proposed revisions are necessary to
establish more efficient coordination between the gas and electric
industries. Requiring such information ensures both a common means of
communication and common business practices to limit miscommunication
for participants engaged in the sale of electric energy at wholesale
and the transportation of natural gas. These requirements conform to
the Commission's plan for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the natural gas pipeline
industries. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal
review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden
estimates associated with the information requirements.
    48. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:
(202) 502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    49. Comments concerning these information collections can be sent
to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent
by email to OMB at the following email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference FERC-545 and/or FERC 549C and
the docket number of this Final Rule (Docket No. RM96-1-037) in your
submission.

VI. Environmental Analysis

    50. 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.\74\ The
actions taken 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 electric power that requires
no construction of facilities.\75\ Therefore, an environmental
assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared as part of this
Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats.
& Regs. Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \75\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    51. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \76\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops

the numerical definition of a small business.\77\ The SBA has
established a size standard for pipelines transporting natural gas,
stating that a firm is small if its annual receipts are less than $25.5
million.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \77\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \78\ 13 CFR 121.201, subsection 486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. The standards being incorporated by reference in this final
rule impose requirements only on interstate pipelines, the majority of
which are not small businesses. Most companies regulated by the
Commission do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity.
Approximately 161 entities would be potential respondents subject to
data collection FERC-545 reporting requirements and also be subject to
data collection FERC 549-C reporting requirements. Nearly all of these
entities are large entities. For the year 2010 (the most recent year
for which information is available), only 10 entities not affiliated
with larger companies had annual revenues of less than $25.5
million.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Our estimate of the number of small entities subject to
this final rule differs from the tally in the Version 2.0 NOPR
because the threshold for being deemed a small company recently has
changed from less than $7 million to less than $25.5 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. The Commission estimates that the one-time implementation cost
of these standards is $303,968, or $1,888 per company.\80\ The
Commission does not consider the estimated $1,888 impact per entity to
be significant. As noted in the Final Rule, the Commission has adopted
policies permitting small entities to request waivers or extensions of
time with respect to the electronic processing requirements of these
regulations. Moreover, the business practice standards are designed to
benefit all customers, including small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ This number is derived by dividing the total cost figure by
the number of respondents. $303,968/161 = $1,888.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA,\81\ the
Commission certifies that the regulations being adopted here will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Document Availability

    55. 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.
    56. 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.
    57. 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 email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
IX. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    58. These regulations are effective August 27, 2012. 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 Part 284

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

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 284,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

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

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

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

0
2. Section 284.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(1) through
(vii) to read as follows:

Sec.  284.12  Standards for pipeline business operations and
communications.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Additional Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010, with
Minor Corrections Applied Through April 30, 2012);
    (ii) Nominations Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010,
with Minor Corrections Applied Through December 2, 2011);
    (iii) Flowing Gas Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30,
2010, with Minor Corrections Applied Through June 3, 2011);
    (iv) Invoicing Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010,
with Minor Corrections Applied Through June 3, 2011);
    (v) Quadrant Electronic Delivery Mechanism Related Standards
(Version 2.0, November 30, 2010, with Minor Corrections Applied Through
December 2, 2011) with the exception of Standard 4.3.4;
    (vi) Capacity Release Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30,
2010, with Minor Corrections Applied Through January 5, 2012); and
    (vii) Internet Electronic Transport Related Standards (Version 2.0,
November 30, 2010, with Minor Corrections Applied Through January 2,
2011) with the exception of Standard 10.3.2.
* * * * *

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

                    Appendix--List of Commenters \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Commenter                      Short name or acronym
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC,    Spectra Entities.
 Spectra Energy Partners, LP, and
 their regulated pipelines and
 storage facilities.
2 North American Energy Standards      NAESB.
 Board \2\.
3 Interstate Natural Gas Association   INGAA.
 \3\.
4 North American Electric Reliability  NERC.
 Corporation.
5 Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline,  Southern Star.
 Inc.\4\.

6 MidAmerican Energy Pipeline Group,   MidAmerican.
 including Kern River Gas
 Transmission Company and Northern
 Natural Gas Company.
7 American Gas Association \5\.......  AGA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition, the ISO/RTO Council submitted notice on March 23, 2012
  that it might file comments in Docket No. AD12-12-000. It filed no
  substantive comments in this proceeding.
\2\ NAESB followed up its March 23, 2012 comments with a pair of status
  reports. The first was filed on April 4, 2012 and the second was filed
  on May 4, 2012.
\3\ INGAA also filed supplemental comments on June 4, 2012 supporting
  the incorporation of standards including NAESB's May 4, 2012
  corrections.
\4\ Southern Star also filed supplemental comments on June 4, 2012
  supporting the incorporation of standards including NAESB's May 4,
  2012 corrections.
\5\ AGA's comments, like those of INGAA and Southern Star, supported the
  incorporation of standards including NAESB's May 4, 2012 corrections.

[FR Doc. 2012-18105 Filed 7-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P