Pipeline Posting Requirements Under Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act; Notice of Agenda for Technical Conference, 11539-11540 [E9-5776]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 18, 2009 / Notices considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at https://www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for review in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Wednesday, March 25, 2009. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E9–5775 Filed 3–17–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER09–556–000; Docket Nos. ER09–556–000; and ER06–615–039; ER08– 367–003] California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice Shortening Answer Period tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES March 11, 2009. On March 6, 2009, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) filed a Motion to Modify Effective Date of Certain Proposed Tariff Revisions and for Expedited Answer Period (March 6 VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:48 Mar 17, 2009 Jkt 217001 Motion). In the filing, CAISO requests that the Commission establish an expedited time period to file answers to the motion in order to facilitate Commission consideration of the motion. By this notice, the date for filing answers to CAISO’s March 6 Motion is shortened to and including March 13, 2009. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. E9–5777 Filed 3–17–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 11539 This conference will be transcribed. There is no registration required to attend and no registration fee. For additional information, please contact Saida Shaalan of FERC’s Office of Enforcement at (202) 502–8278 or by email at Saida.Shaalan@ferc.gov. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. Agenda for Technical Conference Order No. 720 Rehearing Issues Technical Conference RM08–02–001 March 18, 2009 Commission Meeting Room DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM08–2–001] Pipeline Posting Requirements Under Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act; Notice of Agenda for Technical Conference March 11, 2009. On February 24, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Technical Conference (February 24 Notice), to be held March 18, 2009, in the above referenced proceeding. The technical conference is being held by staff for the purpose of discussing certain issues raised in the requests for rehearing filed in response to Order No. 720.1 As stated in the February 24 Notice, the technical conference will be held at the headquarters of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. (EDT). Attached is an agenda for the March 18, 2009, technical conference. The February 24 Notice identified three topics for discussion: (1) The definition of major non-interstate pipelines; (2) what constitutes ‘‘scheduling’’ for a receipt or delivery point; and, (3) how the 15,000 MMBtu per day design capacity threshold should be applied. As reflected in the attached agenda, Panel 1 will address the first topic, with a focus on contiguous and noncontiguous networks, stub lines and other gathering issues; Panel 2 will address the second and third topics, with a focus on how pipeline systems account for high capacity receipt and delivery points (i.e., greater than 15,000 MMBtu per day) where scheduling does not occur; and, Panel 3 will focus on estimating the cost of compliance with Order No. 720. 1 Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act, Order No. 720, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,281 (2008). PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 9–9:10 a.m.—Opening Remarks 9:10–9:50 a.m.—Defining Major NonInterstate Pipelines Assessing contiguous and noncontiguous networks —What constitutes a contiguous pipeline system for the purpose of applying the annual 50 million MMBtu delivery threshold? —What are the market differences between non-contiguous pipeline systems with the same owner and a single pipeline system? Stub lines and other gathering issues —What role do stub lines play in the market? How are they operated? —What gathering functions do not occur upstream of a processing plant? How widespread are those activities (e.g., volumes)? Panelists: Representative from TPA Representative from Southwest Gas Representative from AGA 9:50 a.m.–12 p.m.—Accounting for High Capacity Receipt and Delivery Points (i.e., Greater than 15,000 MMBtu Per Day) Where Scheduling Does Not Occur Is there some rule of thumb to identify points at which advance notice of receipts/deliveries is required for operational purposes? How do companies without scheduling information address the risk of demand volatility from large scale consumers receiving unbundled service? How do pipelines reconcile nominations with actual flows at pooled points? Panelists: Representative from TPA Representative from SoCal Gas Representative from Nicor Representative from AGA 12:10–12:50 p.m.—Estimating the Cost of Compliance What is the basis for cost estimates in the rehearing requests? Are there alternative approaches that E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1 11540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 18, 2009 / Notices would reduce costs? Panelists: Representative from SoCal Gas Representative from TPA 12:50–1 p.m.—Closing Remarks Management (Mail Code 3LC40), U.S. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, telephone: (215) 814–3298. e-mail giuranna.mike@epa.gov. [FR Doc. E9–5776 Filed 3–17–09; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BILLING CODE 6717–01–P A. Background ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–8778–4] Adequacy of Virginia’s Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Determination of Adequacy. AGENCY: tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES SUMMARY: On March 22, 2004, the U.S. EPA issued final regulations allowing research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) permits to be issued to certain municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) by approved states. On September 19, 2008 Virginia submitted an application to U.S. EPA Region 3 seeking approval of its RD&D requirements. Virginia’s RD&D requirements allow Virginia to issue research, development and demonstration (RD&D) permits to owners and operators of MSWLF units in accordance with state law. Subject to public review and comment, this notice approves Virginia’s RD&D permit requirements. DATES: This determination of RD&D program adequacy for Virginia will become effective May 18, 2009 unless adverse comments are received on or before May 18, 2009. If adverse comments are received, the U.S. EPA will review those comments and publish another FR document responding to those comments and either affirming or revising the U.S. EPA’s initial decision. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Mike Giuranna, Land and Chemicals Division, Office of Materials Management (Mail Code 3LC40), U.S. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, telephone: (215) 814–3298. Comments may also be submitted electronically to giuranna.mike@epa.gov or by facsimile at (215) 814–3163. You may examine copies of Virginia’s application and relevant portions of Virginia’s regulations during normal business hours at U.S. EPA Region 3. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Giuranna, Land and Chemicals Division, Office of Materials VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:48 Mar 17, 2009 Jkt 217001 On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule amending the municipal solid waste landfill criteria in 40 CFR part 258 to allow for the issuance of research, development and demonstration (RD&D) permits (69 FR 13242). This rule allows for variances from specified criteria for a limited period of time, to be implemented through state-issued RD&D permits. RD&D permits are available only in states with EPA approved MSWLF permit programs that have been modified to incorporate RD&D permit authority. While states are not required to seek approval for this new provision, those states that are interested in issuing RD&D permits to owners and operators of MSWLFs must seek approval from EPA before issuing such permits. Approval procedures for new provisions of 40 CFR Part 258 are outlined in 40 CFR 239.12. Virginia’s MSWLF permit program was approved by EPA on February 3, 1993 (58 FR 6955), March 31, 1994 (59 FR 15201) and October 7, 2003 (68 FR 57824). On September 19, 2008, Virginia applied for approval of its RD&D permit provisions which are included in the Virginia Administrative Code at 9 VAC 20–80–485D. B. Decision After a thorough review, U.S. EPA Region 3 determined that Virginia’s RD&D permit provisions at 9 VAC 20– 80–485D are adequate to ensure compliance with the Federal criteria promulgated at 40 CFR 258.4. Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section 2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949a. Dated: January 28, 2009. William T. Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 3. [FR Doc. E9–5845 Filed 3–17–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–HQ–OECA–2008–0809; FRL–8783–3] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (FIFRA); EPA ICR No. 0152.09 OMB Control No. 2070–0020 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 17, 2009. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OECA–2008–0809 to (1) EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to docket.oeca@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center (ECDIC), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Nogle, Office of Compliance, Agriculture Division (2225A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–4154; fax number: (202) 564–0085; e-mail address: nogle.robin@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On December 9, 2008, (73 FR 74715– 74717), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11539-11540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5776]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM08-2-001]


Pipeline Posting Requirements Under Section 23 of the Natural Gas 
Act; Notice of Agenda for Technical Conference

March 11, 2009.
    On February 24, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Technical 
Conference (February 24 Notice), to be held March 18, 2009, in the 
above referenced proceeding. The technical conference is being held by 
staff for the purpose of discussing certain issues raised in the 
requests for rehearing filed in response to Order No. 720.\1\ As stated 
in the February 24 Notice, the technical conference will be held at the 
headquarters of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. (EDT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the 
Natural Gas Act, Order No. 720, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,281 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Attached is an agenda for the March 18, 2009, technical conference. 
The February 24 Notice identified three topics for discussion: (1) The 
definition of major non-interstate pipelines; (2) what constitutes 
``scheduling'' for a receipt or delivery point; and, (3) how the 15,000 
MMBtu per day design capacity threshold should be applied. As reflected 
in the attached agenda, Panel 1 will address the first topic, with a 
focus on contiguous and non-contiguous networks, stub lines and other 
gathering issues; Panel 2 will address the second and third topics, 
with a focus on how pipeline systems account for high capacity receipt 
and delivery points (i.e., greater than 15,000 MMBtu per day) where 
scheduling does not occur; and, Panel 3 will focus on estimating the 
cost of compliance with Order No. 720.
    This conference will be transcribed. There is no registration 
required to attend and no registration fee. For additional information, 
please contact Saida Shaalan of FERC's Office of Enforcement at (202) 
502-8278 or by e-mail at Saida.Shaalan@ferc.gov.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Agenda for Technical Conference

Order No. 720 Rehearing Issues Technical Conference RM08-02-001

March 18, 2009
Commission Meeting Room
9-9:10 a.m.--Opening Remarks
9:10-9:50 a.m.--Defining Major Non-Interstate Pipelines
    Assessing contiguous and non-contiguous networks

--What constitutes a contiguous pipeline system for the purpose of 
applying the annual 50 million MMBtu delivery threshold?
--What are the market differences between non-contiguous pipeline 
systems with the same owner and a single pipeline system?

    Stub lines and other gathering issues

--What role do stub lines play in the market? How are they operated?
--What gathering functions do not occur upstream of a processing plant? 
How widespread are those activities (e.g., volumes)?

Panelists:
    Representative from TPA
    Representative from Southwest Gas
    Representative from AGA
9:50 a.m.-12 p.m.--Accounting for High Capacity Receipt and Delivery 
Points (i.e., Greater than 15,000 MMBtu Per Day) Where Scheduling Does 
Not Occur
    Is there some rule of thumb to identify points at which advance 
notice of receipts/deliveries is required for operational purposes?
    How do companies without scheduling information address the risk of 
demand volatility from large scale consumers receiving unbundled 
service?
    How do pipelines reconcile nominations with actual flows at pooled 
points?
Panelists:
    Representative from TPA
    Representative from SoCal Gas
    Representative from Nicor
    Representative from AGA
12:10-12:50 p.m.--Estimating the Cost of Compliance
    What is the basis for cost estimates in the rehearing requests?
    Are there alternative approaches that

[[Page 11540]]

would reduce costs?
Panelists:
    Representative from SoCal Gas
    Representative from TPA
12:50-1 p.m.--Closing Remarks

[FR Doc. E9-5776 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.