The only problem I can see with this is that paragraph 4 could be construed  to encourage NMNG to request amendment not only to increase the MAXDTQ but  also to decrease it (if the MAXDTQ has been increased by a previous  amendment).
I worry that this might mislead NMNG that the parties can  decrease the MAXDTQ by agreement rather than NMNG using capacity release  procedures.
However, the paragraph does not obligate TW to do anything &  doesn't give NMNG any rights, since any change in the MAXDTQ must be by  mutual agreement (and it's subject to available capacity).
Since it does not  seem to give either party anything they do not already get under the tariff,  I think I would recommend we omit it.
However, NMNG might insist on this or  similar language to reflect the "deal" --- or at least the conversations of

Transwestern Contract Approval Request
The only problem I can see with this is that paragraph <NUMBER> could be construed to encourage NMNG to request amendment not only to increase the MAXDTQ but also to decrease it (if the MAXDTQ has been increased by a previous amendment).
I worry that this might mislead NMNG that the parties can decrease the MAXDTQ by agreement rather than NMNG using capacity release procedures.
However, the paragraph does not obligate TW to do anything & doesn't give NMNG any rights, since any change in the MAXDTQ must be by mutual agreement (and it's subject to available capacity).
Since it does not seem to give either party anything they do not already get under the tariff, I think I would recommend we omit it.
However, NMNG might insist on this or similar language to reflect the "deal" --- or at least the conversations of
party tariff similar language reflect procedures paragraph does recommend maxdtq agreement nmng obligate tw number construed encourage using capacity release previous amendment worry