service contract at the existing and proposed delivery points. The nature of firm service and anticipated total firm deliveries to St. Joe will not change as a result of the split of the deliveries between two meter stations. The capacity to deliver gas at the combined two delivery points is essentially the same as the capacity to deliver gas at St. Joe's existing delivery point.

The waiver requested for Peoples will not affect any other firm service, but data submitted by Florida Gas indicates that it may affect other preferred and interruptible service. The addition of the Oneco and Sarasota delivery points to Peoples' FTS-1 Service Agreement may affect Florida Gas' ability to provide preferred or interruptible service off the Sarasota lateral or on other points on the Florida Gas system. Section 11 of the General Terms and Conditions of Florida Gas' Tariff permits a firm purchaser/transporter to shift firm entitlement between divisions, provided that pipeline capacity and operating conditions so permit and that such a shift does not affect Florida Gas' ability to render firm service to other customers. By adding the Oneco and Sarasota delivery points to Peoples' FTS-1 Service Agreement, Peoples will be able to shift firm entitlement between Peoples' divisions and the Sarasota division. If such a shift does occur and depending on the volumes shifted, Florida Gas' ability to provide preferred and/or interruptible services could be affected. However, the shift will result in no impact on other firm service customers. Because Peoples is a firm customer of Florida Gas, it has priority over the other customers that may be affected and the waiver will therefore not conflict with the first-come, first-served principle.

Delivery Pressure. In its motion to intervene, Peoples raised a concern regarding the potential adverse impacts elevated pressure deliveries, particularly those made in connection with the waiver requested by Lakeland, would have on its service from Florida Gas. In Florida Gas' response to staff's data request on this issue, Florida Gas states that most of its delivery points have pressure regulation to shield its customers from the swings in pressure that take place on a day-to-day basis on the transmission system. Florida Gas states that this

allows the customers to use equipment with lower pressure ratings and allows them to base their system designs on a known and reliable delivery pressure. Further, Florida Gas states that Lakeland has not been guaranteed an elevated delivery pressure, but only that the delivery pressure will not go below 100 psig. Lakeland has agreed to assume the responsibility of regulating the pressure and must install equipment capable of flowing high volumes at low inlet pressures and low volumes at high inlet pressures. Florida Gas states that no customer's service will be curtailed to maintain an elevated delivery pressure to Lakeland. This response adequately addresses Peoples's con

cerns.

Nondiscriminatory waivers. Entex and Thermo and SFCA have asserted that Florida Gas should not be permitted to grant waivers on a discriminatory basis. Thermo and SFCA state that the criteria for waivers should be incorporated in Florida Gas' tariff, and that changes in delivery points should be available to shippers as a matter of right if the criteria are met.

Under its blanket certificate, Florida Gas is required to seek or deny waivers on a nondiscriminatory basis. Shippers who believe future requests for waiver are discriminatory may raise the issue in response to any such request, or may file a complaint with the Commission at any time. No tariff provision is necessary.

On January 11, 1991, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (Colorado Interstate) filed a petition for waiver of section 284.223(a) of the Commission's regulations in the above docket. Section 284.223(a) provides interstate pipelines that have accepted a blanket certificate under section 284.221 of the Commission's regulations with automatic authorization to commence transportation service on behalf of any shipper for a term of 120 days. The 120-day term may be extended indefinitely if the transporting pipeline complies with the prior notice requirements of section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations.1 The prior notice requirement is satisfied if no protests are filed after issuance of notice by the Commission.2 Section 157.205(e) establishes a 45-day notice period for such protests.

Colorado Interstate instituted transportation service pursuant to section 284.223(a) for Enron Gas Marketing, Inc., on October 11, 1990, and filed a prior notice request for authorization to continue the service with the Commission on January 11, 1991. Due to the late filing of the prior notice request, the selfimplementing transportation portion of this

transaction will expire before the end of the 45-day comment period for the prior notice request. Therefore, Colorado Interstate requests that the Commission waive its regulations by extending the 120-day limit in section 284.223(a). Colorado Interstate states, "Due to administrative burdens, the parties in this transaction were unable to execute the agreement provided herein in a timely manner. . . .”

We find that the potential hardship inherent in interrupting the ongoing transportation service outweighs the potential benefit of strict adherence to the 120-day limitation in section 284.223(a)(1) of the regulations.

The Commission orders:

The 120-day limitation in section 284.223(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations is waived to the extent necessary to permit Colorado Interstate to continue the transportation activity described in its petition without interruption until 45 days after the date notice was issued in this proceeding in accordance with section 157.205 of the regulations.

Lois D. Cashell, Secretary.

Take notice that the Commission has determined to take no action on the request for rehearing filed by certain municipal customers1 of the order issued in the above-referenced proceeding on December 6, 1990.2

Accordingly, the request for rehearing is deemed denied under section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act3 and Rule 713(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.+

By order issued May 19, 1987,1 the Director, Division of Environmental Analysis (Director), approved project operational plans for the Joint Ypsilanti Recreation Organization's (Recreation Organization) Ford Lake Project No. 5334. Pursuant to that order, Recreation Organization was required to develop a plan for the installation of streamflow gages in the Huron River, to measure the streamflow entering the project reservoir and the streamflow below the project tailrace, for the purpose of monitoring the instantaneous run-of-river mode of operation. The plan was to be filed with the Commission by October 17, 1987.

Recreation Organization did not file the required plan. Rather, in a pleading dated March 17, 1988,2 Recreation Organization requested that the order be amended to waive the stream gaging requirement and to substitute a less costly method for assuring run-ofriver operation. Correspondence concerning this matter was subsequently exchanged between Commission staff and Recreation Organization.

On January 16, 1990, a compliance order3 was issued by the Director, Division of Project Compliance and Administration (DPCA).

DPCA stated that Recreation Organization had admitted to some violations of the run-ofriver requirement and that there were allegations of additional violations; however, investigation of the allegations was difficult and monitoring of future compliance was impossible due to the lack of adequate record keeping by Recreation Organization and the absence of the required flow gaging equipment. DPCA therefore ordered Recreation Organization to develop a streamflow gaging plan to monitor run-of-river operation.

DPCA has indicated, by letter of June 4, 1990, that Recreation Organization's current operation plan for the project, involving use of headwater and tailwater sensors, use of the United States Geological Survey gage at Ypsilanti on inflows to the project, and operation by a trained on-site operator, should prevent further violations of the run-of-river operation. In view of DPCA's letter, the issue raised in Recreation Organization's March 17, 1988 pleading is moot, and the pleading is dismissed.

This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this notice, pursuant to 18 C.F.R § 385.713.

its electronic bulletin board. The proposal also allows parties three business days to claim the gas and submit nominations for transportation before being assured an unauthorized gas penalty. The Commission also stated that unauthorized gas penalties should not apply where the gas flows into Natural's system as the result of Natural's actions or is due to post-injection allocations, and any benefits that Natural receives as the result of retaining the unauthorized volumes should inure to Natural's sales and transportation customers.

The Rehearing Request

In its request for rehearing, the ProducerMarketers allege that it was error for the Commission to require only three days' notice via Natural's electronic bulletin board before the assessment of unauthorized gas penalties. The Producer-Marketers allege that the notice provision is insufficient given the severity of the penalty and that Natural essentially seeks to create a duty on the part of every shipper and supplier to consult the bulletin board every day. The Producer-Marketers state that shippers and suppliers may consult the bulletin board on a regular basis for many reasons, but some suppliers may consult the bulletin board infrequently, if at all. Instead, the ProducerMarketers propose that Natural give written notice to all parties who utilize any receipt point at which unauthorized gas enters Natural's system, and argue that the bulletin board notice should be a backup to personal notice, not a substitute. In support of their position the Producer-Marketers cite the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, which provides for notice by mail as well as by publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.3

The Producer-Marketers further allege that it was error for Natural to allow the assessment of scheduling penalties in addition to the unauthorized gas penalty. The Producer-Marketers urge Natural to clarify whether, even with three business days' notice, a shipper or supplier would be able to remove the unauthorized gas from Natural's system without being subject to Natural's scheduling penalties. The Producer-Marketers state that Natural's scheduling penalties found in section 10(d) of its FTS and ITS rate schedules apply if deliveries at receipt points vary on any day by more than 20 percent or by more than 10 percent in the case of monthly penalties, and allege that

3 Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, § 18.

The tariff provides that shippers shall pay transporter an additional charge equal to the maximum commodity charge under Rate Schedule FTS applicable to such service multiplied by the discrepancy if deliveries to a receipt point vary any day by

scheduling penalties should not be assessed in addition to unauthorized gas penalties. The Producer-Marketers state that Natural should be required to allow for a reasonable transition period for the scheduling and delivery of these volumes without the shipper becoming subject to additional penalties. The Producer-Marketers urge that the mechanics of removal of the unauthorized volumes must be explained and included in Natural's tariff.

Discussion

Several parties, including Mississippi River Transmission, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and the Process Gas Consumers Group, objected to the three-day notice provision in the initial filing. The Producer-Marketers reiterate arguments previously made by the above-mentioned parties. In its October 31, 1990 order in this docket, the Commission approved the three-business-day notice period proposed by Natural. The Commission had previously considered how much notice was sufficient notice to shippers prior to assessing a penalty for unauthorized gas and accepted Natural's proposal because it was significantly longer than the 24-hour notice period proposed and approved by the Commission in Transwestern Pipeline Company. While the Commission has previously addressed the length of time that notice should be posted, it has never specifically addressed whether actual notice should be required as opposed to publication notice via the company's electronic bulletin board. The Commission agrees with the Producer-Marketers that Natural should provide some form of actual notice to shippers at the relevant receipt points where unauthorized gas has been placed on the system. Accordingly, the Commission will require Natural to notify shippers at their principal place of business, either in writing or by telephone, that Natural has received unauthorized gas at the relevant receipt point. This procedure for giving actual notice would not be in lieu of the electronic bulletin board, but in addition to it as requested by the Producer-Marketers.

The Producer-Marketers also submit that Natural should be required to allow for a reasonable transition period for the scheduling and delivery of these volumes without the shipper becoming subject to additional penalties, and further assert that scheduling penalties should not be assessed in addition to unauthorized gas penalties. The Commission believes that it is

more than 20 percent or by more than 10 percent in the case of monthly deliveries.

5 53 FERC at p. 61,457.

6 48 FERC ¶ 61,389, at p. 62,584. (1989).