You are on page 1of 4

55762 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call practices regarding fuel and lost and second option allows the pipeline to
(202) 502–8659. unaccounted-for gas. The Commission is include in its tariff a mechanism
seeking comments on whether it should permitting periodic changes in its fuel
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
change its current policy and prescribe retention percentage outside of a general
Acting Deputy Director. a uniform method for all pipelines to section 4 rate case, as allowed by
[FR Doc. E7–19283 Filed 9–28–07; 8:45 am] use in recovering these costs.1 section 154.403 of the Commission’s
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P regulations.6 ANR held that, if a
I. Current Commission Policy on Fuel pipeline chooses the second option, it
Retention must include in its tariff a mechanism
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 2. Interstate natural gas pipelines to true-up any over- and under-
frequently require that customers recoveries of fuel, absent agreement
Federal Energy Regulatory
contribute a small percentage of the otherwise by all interested parties.
Commission 4. In ANR, the Commission explained
volumes of natural gas tendered for
[Docket No. RM07–20–000] transportation service to provide fuel for that its general ratemaking policy,
compressors and to make up for lost and established in Order No. 436, is that
Fuel Retention Practices of Natural unaccounted-for gas.2 Each pipeline pipelines must design their rates based
Gas Companies states the percentage it retains in its on estimated units of service without
open access tariff. Currently effective any type of true-up mechanism.7 This
September 20, 2007. means that the pipeline is at risk for
tariff fuel retention rates range from
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory fractions of a percent to as high as 13 under-recovery of its costs between rate
Commission, DOE. percent.3 cases and may retain any over-recovery.
ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 3. The Commission established its This gives pipelines an incentive both to
current policy concerning the in-kind minimize their costs and maximize the
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy service they provide. A cost tracker
recovery of fuel and unaccounted-for
Regulatory Commission is seeking undercuts these incentives by
gas in ANR Pipeline Company (ANR).4
comments on its policy regarding the in- guaranteeing the pipeline revenues
In its January 2005 order in the ANR
kind recovery of fuel and lost and sufficient to recover its costs regardless
case,5 the Commission stated that
unaccounted-for gas by natural gas of the level of costs or services
pipelines have two options to recover
pipeline companies. The Commission is provided.
these costs. The first option is to
inviting interested persons to submit 5. However, as the Commission
establish a fixed fuel retention
comments, and other information on the explained in ANR, it had permitted an
percentage in a general section 4 rate
matters, issues and specific questions exception to this policy for a few cost
case, and leave that percentage
identified in this notice. items that are subject to significant
unchanged until the pipeline files its
DATES: Comments are due November 30, next general section 4 rate case. The changes from year to year and thus are
2007. difficult to predict. Among these cost
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 1 In this proceeding, the Commission is seeking items is fuel. The Commission
identified by Docket No. RM07–20–000. comments on several specific proposals for rate explained that section 154.403 of its
by one of the following methods: recovery of fuel and lost and unaccounted-for gas, regulations permits a pipeline to adjust
as well as answers to specific questions. It also its fuel retention percentages in periodic
Æ Agency Web Site: http:// should be noted that the Commission has initiated Follow the instructions a separate proceeding in Docket No. RM07–9–000 limited section 4 rate filings pursuant to
for submitting comments via the eFiling inquiring about the need for changes or revisions a methodology set forth in the pipeline’s
link found in the Comment Procedures in the Commission’s reporting requirements for its tariff. The Commission stated that
financial forms including the Form Nos. 2 and 2– section 154.403 does not expressly
Section of the preamble. A, Annual Reports of Major and Nonmajor Natural
Æ Mail: Commenters unable to file Gas Companies. Assessment of Information
require that pipelines include true-up
comments electronically must mail an Requirements for FERC Financial Forms, Notice of mechanisms as part of the tariff
original and 14 copies of their Inquiry, FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 35,554 (February 15, provision permitting periodic
2007). The Commission received a number of adjustments to their fuel retention
comments to: Federal Energy NE., comments and suggestions in that proceeding
Washington, DC, 20426. Please refer to regarding the adequacy of information reported in
percentages. Instead, the Commission
the Comment Procedure Section of the the Form No. 2 concerning gas retained, used for stated, it had addressed this issue on a
preamble for additional information on compression, and lost and unaccounted-for. case-by-case basis and required a true-
Accordingly, the reporting requirements related to up when the facts of a particular case so
how to file paper comments. gas retained, used for compression, and lost and
unaccounted-for will be addressed in the Notice of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 6. In ANR, the Commission changed
Proposed Rulemaking which the Commission is
Ingrid M. Olson, Office of the General concurrently issuing in Docket No. RM07–9–000, this approach and held that, if a
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory 120 FERC ¶ 61,256. pipeline wishes to take full advantage of
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 2 Some pipelines do not require shippers to
the incentives underlying our general
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8406. contribute in-kind a portion of the gas tendered to
ratemaking policy with respect to in-
the pipeline for transportation for the pipeline’s
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: use. kind fuel recovery, then it can choose
Notice of Inquiry
3 See, e.g., MIGC, Inc., FERC Gas Tariff, First the first option which requires
Revised Volume No. 1, Eleventh Revised Sheet No. establishing a fixed fuel retention
September 20, 2007. 6 (fuel retention percentages up to 13 percent); Gas
Transmission Northwest, FERC Gas Tariff, Third
percentage. However, if the pipeline
1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the Revised Volume No. 1–A, Seventh Revised Sheet chooses the second option and tracks its
Commission is seeking comments on its No. 6 (0.005 percent fuel retention). fuel costs, then there must be an
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

policy regarding the in-kind recovery of 4 ANR Pipeline Co., order on compliance filing,
assurance that the fuel costs are tracked
fuel and lost and unaccounted-for gas by 108 FERC ¶ 61,050 (2004), order inviting comments, accurately so that the pipeline does not
natural gas pipeline companies. Current 109 FERC ¶ 61,038 (2004), order on reh’g and
compliance filing, 110 FERC ¶ 61,069 (2005), order over-recover its fuel costs under any
policy, described below, gives pipelines on reh’g and compliance filing, 111 FERC ¶ 61,290
two options for recovering these costs, (2005). 6 18 CFR 154.403.
and pipelines follow a variety of 5 110 FERC ¶ 61,069, at P18–28. 7 18 CFR 284.10(c)(2).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:31 Sep 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM 01OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55763

circumstances. Therefore, the second • The second category is the tracker is attributable to pipelines with a tracker
option requires a true-up mechanism. approach, where provisions in a and no true-up or a tracker with a true-
The Commission explained that pipeline’s tariff allow the pipeline to up mechanism.
allowing a particular cost item to be make prospective adjustments to its fuel 12. Moreover, with the tightening in
tracked gives the pipeline the retention rates from time-to-time, but do natural gas supplies in recent years,
opportunity to increase that cost item not include a mechanism to allow the there have been substantial increases in
without regard to the possibility of any pipeline to reconcile past over-or under- the price of natural gas. As a result, the
offsetting cost reductions. The recoveries of fuel. Eight pipelines have pipeline’s fuel charges now make up a
Commission stated that in return for this tracker mechanisms without true-up significantly greater percentage of the
opportunity, there should be an requirements. overall cost of transporting natural
assurance that the individual cost item • The third category is the tracker gas.13
is tracked accurately, and the pipeline with a true-up approach, where 13. The increasing significance of
should not in any circumstances be provisions in a pipeline’s tariff allow for pipeline fuel charges in the overall cost
permitted to over-recover those costs. periodic adjustments to its fuel of transportation and the concerns about
7. In reaching this conclusion, the retention rates, and also provide for a pipeline cost over-recoveries suggest
Commission rejected ANR’s contention true-up of past over- and under- that further investigation of in-kind fuel
that it should be permitted to retain its recoveries of fuel and lost and retention practices is warranted.
existing tracker without a true-up unaccounted-for gas. Thirty-eight Therefore, the Commission is seeking
mechanism because the existing tracker pipelines have tracker mechanisms with comments on whether its current policy
provided it with an incentive to reduce true-ups in their tariffs. with regard to the in-kind recovery of
fuel costs and a true-up mechanism fuel and unaccounted for gas should be
II. Discussion modified, both for the purpose of
would eliminate this incentive. ANR
argued that because its fuel recovery 10. Pipeline customers have providing pipelines a greater incentive
mechanism bases each year’s fuel expressed concerns that in-kind gas to reduce their fuel use and lost gas and
retention percentage on the average of retained by pipelines for fuel and for the purpose of minimizing pipeline
fuel use on its system during the three unaccounted-for gas requirements is over-recoveries of these costs.
preceding years, ANR was able to retain excessive, and provides pipelines with Specifically the Commission is
a portion of any over-recoveries of fuel significant profits. For example, the requesting comments on the following
resulting from a downward trend in fuel Natural Gas Supply Association, in its questions:
use and, on the other hand, must absorb recent study of pipeline returns, (1) Should the Commission Continue to
a portion of any under-recoveries if fuel estimated that in aggregate 32 pipelines, Allow Recovery of Pipeline Fuel Costs
use trends upward. ANR argued that representing 80 percent of interstate Through Fixed Fuel Retention
with this tracker in place, it had in fact throughput, generated about $2.1 billion Percentages?
reduced its fuel use which resulted in in excess retained fuel over the five-year
period ending in 2005.9 In a recent 14. As described above, the
savings to its customers. Commission’s review of pipeline Form
8. The Commission rejected ANR’s complaint against National Fuel Gas
Supply Corporation, the principal No. 2 data indicates that some pipelines,
argument, stating that allowing ANR to particularly those with fixed fuel
over-recover fuel from its customers is concern was excessive fuel retention.10
11. The Commission’s review of retention percentages, are over-
not a necessary incentive to encourage recovering their fuel costs. By contrast,
the company to minimize its use of fuel information filed by pipelines in their
2005 Form No. 2 filings indicates that a properly designed fuel tracker and
gas. The Commission concluded, with true-up mechanism would ensure that a
regard to fuel use and lost and major pipelines appear to have retained
or carried over in their accounts a net pipeline does not over-recover its fuel
unaccounted-for gas, that the benefits of costs. However, allowing pipelines to
requiring a true-up outweigh any sum of over 97 Bcf in fuel beyond what
was consumed, lost, or unaccounted- establish a fixed in-kind fuel retention
disadvantages. percentage in a general section 4 rate
9. While ANR established a general for.11 At average 2005 prices, this
represents over $711 million in value.12 case is consistent with the
policy of requiring pipelines such as Commission’s general ratemaking
ANR that have a fuel tracker to include Of that amount, 58 Bcf, with a value of
true-up mechanisms, the Commission $427 million, is attributable to those 13 A comparison between 2002 and 2006 data for
has only enforced that policy in pipelines that do not have a tracker Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Texas
individual cases where parties raise the mechanism in their tariff, and nearly 39 Eastern) illustrates this point. According to EIA, the
issue. Thus, pipelines continue to Bcf, with a value of over $285 million, average wellhead natural gas price rose from $2.95
per MMBtu in 2002, to $6.42 per MMBtu in 2006.
follow a variety of practices regarding 9 Natural Gas Supply Association, Pipeline Cost Texas Eastern’s maximum rate for interruptible
fuel and lost and unaccounted-for gas Recovery of 32 Major Pipelines, FERC Form No. 2
transportation through the full length of the system
which can be described as fitting into (Zone STX to Zone M3) in 2002 was $0.6639 per
Data (2001–2005) at 4, available upon request at
MMBtu, and Texas Eastern retained 8.94 percent of
one of three categories. Natural Gas Supply Association, 805 15th Street,
the gas for fuel use, at an additional cost to the
• The first category is the stated-rate N.W., Suite 510, Washington, D.C. 20005.
shipper of $0.2637 (fuel retention rate times the
10 Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y. v. National Fuel Gas
approach, where a fixed percentage is wellhead price). FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised
Supply Corp., 115 FERC ¶ 61,299, reconsideration Volume No. 1, Seventh Revised Sheet No. 49. Thus,
stated in the tariff as a non-negotiable granted in part, 115 FERC ¶ 61,368 (2006), order the shipper’s total cost was $0.9276 per MMBtu.
fee-in-kind retained from the volumes on settlement, 118 FERC ¶ 61,091 (2007). The fuel cost equaled 28.4 percent of the total. In
tendered for shipment by each shipper 11 Commission staff examined available Form No.
2006, the maximum rate for interruptible
and changed only in a general section 4 2 data for 2005 to derive the sum of the net fuel transportation was $0.6231, and Texas Eastern
retained (the amount received from shippers minus retained 7.94 percent of the gas for fuel, at an
rate case. Of 70 major pipelines, 24 have
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

the amount consumed for operations or lost or additional cost to the shipper of $0.5097. FERC Gas
a stated rate.8 unaccounted-for). Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, Thirty-
12 The Energy Information Administration (EIA) Second Revised Sheet No. 49. Thus, in 2006, the
8 These categories and the number of pipelines reports the average wellhead price of natural gas for shipper’s total cost was $1.1328 per MMBtu. Here,
noted within each category were identified in a 2005 was $7.33 per MMBtu. (http:// the fuel cost equaled 45 percent of the total, an
Commission staff analysis of the FERC tariffs of 70 increase of about 17 percentage points over the
major pipelines. ng_sum_lsum_dcu_nus_a.htm). 2002 figure.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:31 Sep 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM 01OCN1
55764 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices

policies and section 154.403 of the under-recoveries? If so, which new policy? If the Commission adopts a
Commission’s regulations. In ANR, the standardized incentive approach should generic fuel retention policy, should it
Commission continued to permit the Commission consider? permit pipelines and shippers to reach
pipelines to use that recovery method, 16. New compressor stations can be settlements thereafter that provide for
stating that the method gives pipelines designed to minimize fuel use through, recovery of fuel costs in a manner
an incentive to minimize their fuel use for example, motor selection (size, fuel different from that policy?
through more efficient operations. These efficiency, throughput flexibility) as
well as minimizing pressure drops (2) Should the Commission Mandate
efficiencies could benefit customers
through the station (yard pipe and That All Pipelines Must Have a Tracker
when the pipeline files its next general
facility sizing). Existing compressors Mechanism for the Recovery of Fuel?
section 4 rate case, although until the
pipeline does file a new section 4 rate stations can also be redesigned to 20. While the Commission’s general
case it would retain the benefit from any reduce fuel by minimizing pressure policy is that rates should be based on
savings. Also, a fixed in-kind fuel drops through the station or installing projections of future costs based on test
retention percentage avoids potentially gas coolers to reduce the need for period experience, the Commission
disruptive changes in the pipeline’s fuel compression. How does the type of fuel permits certain costs that are volatile
rates outside a general section 4 rate cost recovery mechanism (fixed fuel and thus particularly difficult to project,
case, thereby giving customers the retention percentages, tracker with no to be tracked. Is fuel use and lost and
benefit of greater certainty as to the true-up or tracker with true-up) affect unaccounted-for gas difficult to predict
pipeline’s fuel rates. For that reason, these decisions, if any? Similarly, is the with precision? If so, does the volatility
shippers may favor fixed fuel retention fuel cost recovery or other mechanism a of pipeline fuel use and the experience
percentages. factor when deciding whether to with the fixed retention percentage
15. Do the benefits of a fixed retention construct a larger diameter pipe instead justify a blanket requirement that all
percentage for recovery of fuel in-kind of compression or use advanced pipelines recover their fuel costs
outweigh the potential for cost over- SCADA/control systems to manage line through a tracker? If not, should the
recovery? Have pipelines with fixed pack? Commission continue the exception that
retention percentages reduced their fuel 17. As stated above, if the
permits pipelines to make limited
use? If so, provide specific examples. Commission were to adopt incentive
section 4 filings tracking their fuel
Have pipelines with fixed in-kind provisions to encourage pipelines to
costs? Do the recent increases in the cost
retention percentages that have reduced reduce fuel use and lost and
of fuel further justify use of a tracker?
their fuel use filed section 4 rate cases, unaccounted-for gas, one option would
be a mechanism for sharing between the 21. In Order No. 637, the Commission
thereby passing through to customers established a principle that pipelines
the benefit of any prospective fuel cost pipeline and its shippers of any fuel
cost recoveries and/or under-recoveries. should not profit from the penalty
savings? Do pipelines with fixed fuel provisions in their tariffs for
retention percentages have less How could such a cost-and-benefit-
sharing mechanism affect the decisions imbalances, unauthorized overruns,
incentive to file new section 4 rate scheduling violations, etc.15 This was
cases, such that shippers are not discussed immediately above? Could a
cost-and-benefit-sharing mechanism intended to eliminate any incentive for
receiving the benefit of any reduced fuel pipelines to propose unnecessary
use? Are there barriers that make it between the pipeline and its customers
ameliorate any concerns that fuel penalties that hinder efficiency.16 Does
difficult for shippers to file section 5 permitting pipelines to profit from fuel
complaints to police over-recovery of efficient investment is ‘‘gold plating’’
rate base, i.e., making an investment retention also create undesirable
fuel costs? incentives for pipelines? For example,
Does the benefit to shippers of greater that increases the rate base and the
corresponding return without do the profits from excess fuel retention
rate certainty from a fixed fuel
necessarily creating a corresponding lead some pipelines to avoid updating
percentage justify continuing to permit
benefit to the pipeline’s customers? their base tariff rates because, on
pipelines to use a fixed fuel retention
18. What are the barriers to cost balance, they are receiving an adequate
rate? If pipelines were to be allowed to
effective, fuel efficient investment, it cash flow in aggregate?
continue using the fixed fuel retention
any? If barriers exist, how does the
rate approach, should the Commission (3) If the Commission Requires Pipelines
Commission remove such barriers?
consider imposing explicit incentive To Use a Tracker, Should It Require a
What factors, including, if applicable,
requirements, such as the application of True-Up Mechanism?
the type of fuel cost recovery
an RPI–X methodology 14 on either a mechanism, affect the amount of As stated above, in ANR, the
generic or case-specific basis? If the research and development (R&D) being Commission concluded that if a
Commission were to adopt incentive done to advance technology in these pipeline has a tracker and is therefore
provisions to encourage pipelines to areas? How could a cost-and-benefit- able to recover its fuel costs outside of
reduce fuel use and lost and sharing mechanism between the a general section 4 proceeding, it should
unaccounted-for gas, should the pipeline and its customers affect the track those costs accurately and not be
Commission adopt a standardized level of R&D? Could fuel efficiency permitted to over-recover its fuel costs
incentive approach, such as the sharing measures impact either directly or in any circumstances. Accordingly, the
between the pipeline and its shippers of indirectly throughput or reliability on Commission required all pipelines with
any fuel cost over-recoveries and/or the pipeline grid, and if so, in what trackers to include a true-up
14 An ‘‘RPI–X’’ methodology would allow fuel
manner? mechanism. With both a tracker and a
costs to rise with inflation minus some X-factor
19. Some fixed fuel retention true-up mechanism, the pipeline simply
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

deduction to provide a strong incentive towards provisions were established through passes through its fuel costs to its
efficiency and an implicit sharing of future settlements. How important are fixed customers, and, therefore, there may in
efficiencies with ratepayers. Such methods, if fuel retention provisions to these
employed in fuel retention provisions, would need
to be adapted to fit the circumstances of in-kind
settlements? If the Commission adopts a 15 18 CFR 284.12(b)(v).
retention requirements, rather than monetary new generic policy, should it modify 16 Order No. 637, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,091 at
payments. these existing settlements to apply its 31,315.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:31 Sep 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM 01OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 189 / Monday, October 1, 2007 / Notices 55765

fact be little incentive for the pipeline 27. To facilitate the Commission’s 8371, TTY 202–502–8659 (e-mail at
to try to reduce those costs. review of the comments, commenters
22. In ANR, the Commission found are requested to provide an executive By direction of the Commission.
that the inclusion of a true-up summary of their position. Commenters Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
mechanism in a tracker does not remove are requested to identify each specific
Acting Deputy Secretary.
all incentives for the pipeline to reduce question posed by the Notice of Inquiry
that their discussion addresses and to [FR Doc. E7–19386 Filed 9–28–07; 8:45 am]
its fuel use. The Commission explained
use appropriate headings. Additional BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
that pipelines do face some competitive
pressures in obtaining marginal issues the commentors wish to raise
throughput, for example, obtaining should be identified separately. The
customers with access to alternative commenters should double space their ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
fuels. Because the Commission has held comments. AGENCY
that pipelines may not discount their 28. Comments may be filed on paper [FRL–8476–3]
fuel use percentages since those costs or electronically via the eFiling link on
are variable, the only way a pipeline can the Commission’s Web site at http:// Proposed Settlement Agreement,
reduce its fuel percentages in order to The Commission accepts Clean Air Act Citizen Suit
help obtain marginal business is by most standard word processing formats
reducing its fuel usage. and commentors may attach additional AGENCY: Environmental Protection
23. Was the Commission’s conclusion files with supporting information in Agency (EPA).
in ANR, that the benefits of requiring a certain other file formats. Commentors ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement
true-up as part of a tracker outweigh the filing electronically do not need to make Agreement; Request for Public
disadvantages of reduced incentives for a paper filing. Commenters that are not Comment.
efficient operation accurate? What able to file comments electronically
impact does a true-up mechanism have must send an original and 14 copies of SUMMARY: In accordance with section
on a pipeline’s incentive to reduce fuel their comments to: Federal Energy 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended
costs? Is there evidence that pipelines Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is
with tracker and true-up mechanisms Commission, 888 First Street, NE., hereby given of a proposed settlement
operate less efficiently than pipelines Washington, DC 20426. agreement, to address a lawsuit filed by
without such mechanisms? 29. All comments will be placed in Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action
24. Is there a benefit to giving the Commission’s public files and may (‘‘RMCAA’’) in the United States Court
pipelines an incentive to reduce fuel be viewed, printed, or downloaded of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: Rocky
use, such as the inclusion in the tracker remotely as described in the Document Mountain Clean Air Action v. EPA, No.
of a profit or loss sharing mechanism? Availability section below. Commenters 07–1012 (D.C. Cir.). Petitioner filed a
If the pipeline could retain some benefit are not required to serve copies of their petition for review challenging EPA’s
of fuel cost reductions, would it have a comments on other commenters. final rule entitled ‘‘Final Extension of
greater incentive to reduce those costs? the Deferred Effective Date for 8-Hour
IV. Document Availability Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Would customers benefit from the
reduced costs and from sharing in any 30. In addition to publishing the full Standards (‘‘NAAQS’’) for Early Action
cost over-recoveries? How important are text of this document in the Federal Compact Areas,’’ 71 FR 69022 (Nov. 29,
fuel costs relative to total transportation Register, the Commission provides all 2006). Under the terms of the proposed
costs? interested persons an opportunity to settlement agreement, deadlines have
view and/or print the contents of this been established for EPA and the State
(4) Should the Commission Retain Its document via the Internet through the of Colorado to take specific actions
Current Policy? Commission’s Home Page (http:// related to the Denver Early Action
25. Finally, the Commission seeks and in the Commission’s Compact (‘‘Denver EAC’’) area.
comments on whether it should retain Public Reference Room during normal Petitioner’s sole remedy if EPA or the
its current policy which gives pipeline business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. State fails to take one of these actions
discretion over whether to have a Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., is to request the court to lift the stay and
tracker mechanism governing the Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. to set a briefing schedule.
recovery of fuel costs. What are the 31. From the Commission’s Home DATES: Written comments on the
benefits and/or costs of retaining the Page on the Internet, this information is proposed settlement agreement must be
current policy? What factors should the available in the Commission’s document received by October 31, 2007.
Commission consider in deciding management system, eLibrary. The full ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
whether a change in fuel retention text of this document is available on identified by Docket ID number EPA–
policy is warranted at this time? eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word HQ–OGC–2007–0991, online at http://
format for viewing, printing, and/or (EPA’s preferred
III. Procedure for Comments downloading. To access this document method); by e-mail to
26. The Commission invites interested in eLibrary, type the docket number; mailed to EPA
persons to submit comments, and other (excluding the last three digits) in the Docket Center, Environmental
information on the matters, issues and docket number field. Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
specific questions identified in this 32. User assistance is available for 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
notice. Comments are due 60 days from eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

the date of publication in the Federal during normal business hours. For hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket
Register. Comments must refer to assistance, please contact the Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Docket No. RM07–20–000, and must Commission’s Online Support at 1–866– Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
include the commenter’s name, the 208–3676 (toll free) or 202–502–6652 (e- DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
organization it represents, if applicable, mail at or Monday through Friday, excluding legal
and its address. the Public Reference Room at 202–502– holidays. Comments on a disk or CD–

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:31 Sep 28, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM 01OCN1