[Federal Register: October 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 193)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57515-57538]
[DOCID:fr03oc08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 35, 131, 154, 157, 250, 281, 284, 300, 341, 344, 346,
347, 348, 375 and 385

[Docket No. RM01-5-000; Order No. 714]

Electronic Tariff Filings

Issued September 19, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is revising its
regulations to require that all tariffs and tariff revisions and rate
change applications for the public utilities, natural gas pipelines,
oil pipelines and power administrations be filed electronically
according to a set of standards developed in conjunction with the North
American Energy Standards Board. This rule is part of the Commission's
efforts to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), and the E-Government Act of 2002 by
developing the capability to file electronically with the Commission
via the Internet. Electronic filing reduces physical storage space
needs and document processing time, provides for easier tracking of
document filing activity; potentially reduces mailing and courier fees;
allows concurrent access to the tariff filing by multiple parties as
well as the ability to download and print tariff filings; and provides
automatic e-mail notification to an applicant of receipt of the filing
and whether or not it has been accepted. Upon implementation of this
rule, the Commission will no longer accept tariff filings submitted in
paper format.

DATES: Effective Dates: This rule will become effective November 3,
2008. Implementation will begin April 1, 2010 pursuant to a six month
staggered schedule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
H. Keith Pierce (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Anthony Barracchini (IT Information), Office of the Executive Director,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Andre Goodson (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                            Table of Contents

                                                              Paragraph
                                                                number

I. Background..............................................           2.
II. Discussion.............................................           9.
    A. Electronic Filing Requirements......................          15.
        1. Companies Required to File Tariffs                        15.
         Electronically....................................
        2. Procedures for Making Tariff Filings............          16.
        3. XML Schema and Tariff Database..................          23.
    B. Tariff Filing Requirements..........................          33.
        1. Sheets or Section Filing Requirements...........          35.
        2. Gas and Electric Open Access Transmission                 40.
         Tariffs...........................................
        3. Versioning......................................          46.
        4. Marked Tariff Changes...........................          52.
        5. Clean Tariff Sheets Filed as Attachments........          58.
        6. Joint, Shared, and Section 206 Filings..........          60.
            a. Joint Tariff Filings........................          61.
            b. Shared Tariffs..............................          65.
            c. Section 206 Filings Related to ISOs/RTOs....          74.
    C. Other Business Practice Changes.....................          77.
        1. Electronic Service..............................          77.
        2. Attachment Documents............................          79.
        3. Withdrawal of Pending Tariff Filings and                  80.
         Amendments to Tariff Filings......................
        4. Motions.........................................          83.
        5. Rate Sheets for Tariff Filings by Intrastate and          84.
         Hinshaw Pipelines.................................
    D. Regulatory Text.....................................          86.
    E. Transition Procedures...............................          87.
        1. Testing of Software.............................          87.
        2. Baseline Tariff Filings.........................          92.
        3. Implementation Date for eTariff.................         102.
III. Information Collection Statement......................         105.
    A. Comments on the NOPR's Burden Estimates.............         107.

    B. Burden Estimates....................................         113.
IV. Environmental Analysis.................................         119.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act..............................         120.
VI. Document Availability..................................         122.
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification.........         125.
Regulatory Text............................................
Appendix...................................................

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.

    1. The Commission in the last several years has expanded its
capability to accept electronic filings. As part of this process, the
Commission has sought to develop a means by which publicly regulated
utilities could file tariffs, rate schedules, and other jurisdictional
contracts and agreements electronically in a fashion that would permit
the Commission to assemble and organize the disparate pieces of these
agreements for display and for use by the Commission and the public.
Commission staff in collaboration with the wholesale electric and gas
quadrants of the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), and
representatives from the Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL) developed
a set of standards to be used by companies in making tariff and tariff
related filings at the Commission. The Commission is adopting these
standards as the requirement for making tariff and tariff related
filings.

I. Background

    2. The development of these standards began in 2004 with a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking \1\ in which the Commission proposed to require
public utilities, power administrations, interstate and intrastate gas
pipelines, and oil pipelines to file tariff and tariff related material
electronically. The Commission proposed to develop an electronic tariff
database to store tariff and tariff related information for retrieval
by Commission staff and the public. In order to implement a tariff
database system that would permit such functionality, Commission staff
developed a software system for tariff filings similar to that used in
filing forms with the Commission. Commission staff worked with many
industry representatives and experts to test this software and held
public meetings to demonstrate and receive comment on the software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electronic Tariff Filings, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 69
FR 43,929 (July 23, 2004) FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed Regulations
2004-2007 ] 32,575 (2004) (2004 NOPR), Notice of Additional
Proposals and Procedures, 70 FR 40941 (July 15, 2005), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 35,551 (2005) (2005 Notice). The 2004 NOPR was the result of
an earlier Notice of Inquiry and Informal Conference in this same
proceeding (Electronic Tariff Filings, 66 FR 15673 (March 20, 2001),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 35,538, at 35,789-91 (2001)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. While some commenters supported using the Commission-provided
software as an acceptable solution, others were concerned that this
software might not work well for making tariff filings. Some also were
concerned that the Commission software would not integrate well with
their existing tariff management systems and that formatting tariffs to
fit the parameters of the software could be difficult or time
consuming.
    4. As a result of the review of the comments, on February 1, 2007,
a public meeting was held with NAESB to discuss NAESB's assistance in
the process of developing the protocols, standards, and data formats
needed to provide tariff and related data to enable the Commission to
develop a database to track electronic tariff and rate schedules
filings. At the meeting, NAESB agreed to develop these standards and
report back to the Commission.
    5. NAESB established two committees, a business eTariff
Subcommittee and an eTariff Technical Task Force. These committees
included representatives from the wholesale natural gas industry,
wholesale electric industry, oil pipelines, intrastate natural gas
pipelines, and third party software developers who worked along with
Commission staff to develop the applicable standards. Between February
1, 2007 and January 23, 2008, these committees held a total of 16
meetings in various cities over 24 days. Total attendance in all the
meetings was 991 participants either in person or by electronic
conferencing, with an average attendance of 62 people for each meeting.
    6. The committees determined not to use the Commission developed
software, but instead to develop standards that would enable individual
companies to develop or procure software for making tariff filings that
would best meet the needs of each company's business requirements. The
Executive Committees for both the Wholesale Gas and Wholesale Electric
Quadrants of NAESB approved the standards on March 4, 2008, and the
NAESB membership ratified the standards on April 4, 2008.
    7. On April 15, 2008, NAESB filed the standards with the Commission
along with a record of the NAESB proceedings. This material included
questions about the policies to be followed in using the standards to
make tariff filings. NAESB also provided a copyright waiver stating:
``While the eTariff standards are copyrighted by NAESB, a limited
waiver is granted to the FERC to modify and post any excerpts of the
eTariff standards and eTariff work products that they deem appropriate.
These excerpts will be available for companies to reproduce only for
their own internal use.''
    8. On April 17, 2008, the Commission issued a Supplemental Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to use the NAESB developed
standards as the means to effectuate electronic tariff filing.\2\ The
NOPR also proposed solutions to several issues raised during the NAESB
process, such as the filing process for shared and joint tariffs.
Twenty comments were filed, with most generally favoring the use of the
NAESB standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As used in this Final Rule, the ``NAESB standards'' or
``standards'' refer to a set of data elements and requirements that
are posted on the Commission Web site. Instruction Manual for
Electronic Filing of Parts 35, 154, 300, 341 and 284 Tariff Filings.
(http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=11683627)
    \3\ Appendix A lists the commenters and the abbreviations used
for each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    9. As the background indicated, this proceeding has followed a long
and winding road, with a number of detours and U-turns, but we have
reached the end of the road and are adopting a final set of standards
for electronic tariff filings.\4\ We again want to thank

NAESB, its Board of Directors, and the numerous volunteers from across
the spectrum of the gas, electric, and oil industries who were able to
meet with staff and develop a set of standards and protocols that will
achieve the Commission's goal of establishing a robust electronic
filing environment for tariffs and tariff related material and will
make it possible for the Commission staff and the public to retrieve
this material from a database. We will adopt the standards and
protocols developed through the NAESB collaborative process in place of
providing Commission-created software. Adoption of these standards and
protocols will provide each company with enhanced flexibility to
develop software to better integrate tariff filings with their
individual tariff maintenance and business needs. These standards and
protocols also will provide an open platform permitting third-party
software developers to create more efficient tariff filing and
maintenance applications, which will spread the development costs over
larger numbers of companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Smith v. Lachter (In re Smith), 352 B.R. 702 (B.A.P. 9th
Cir. 2006) (``This matter is reminiscent of that old Beatles'
standard, `The Long and Winding Road,' a brooding song about a road
that never ends. One can only hope that, with this opinion, the end
of the road is indeed in sight'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Over the last few years, the Commission has greatly expanded
its ability to accept electronically filed material, including
interventions, protests, rehearings, complaints, and applications for
certificates and licenses.\5\ We now are expanding these filings to
include tariffs and tariff-related material, which comprise a large
portion of the Commission's workload. But tariff filings raise special
challenges that our current filing systems do not address. eLibrary is
designed and works extremely well as a repository that stores, and
permits retrieval of, all documents filed in individual docketed
proceedings. But while an individual tariff filing is made in an
individual docket, the tariff itself is an organically changing
document that is comprised of individual filings made in many different
dockets over time. In order for the Commission and the public to obtain
a complete picture of a company's tariff, these various provisions need
to be integrated into a single system that will provide information as
to the status of tariff provisions, permit the assembly of a complete
tariff, and permit tariff related research. Indeed, for tariffs filed
on paper, the Commission has managed these tariffs as a database by
keeping tariff books, open to the public at our headquarters, in which
new pages are inserted to replace old pages to reflect revisions, and
such changes are recorded in ``numbering'' sheets to ensure that the
tariff reflects the currently effective tariff.\6\ The standards we are
adopting in this Final Rule merely replace this paper system with a
very similar electronic database that will similarly track the tariff
submissions and tariff history, but in a form that will make tariff
information more widely available over the Internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Electronic Registration, Order No. 891, 67 FR 52,406
(Aug. 12, 2002), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,132 (2002); Electronic
Filing of FERC Form 1, and Elimination of Certain Designated
Schedules in Form Nos. 1 and 1F, Order No. 626, 67 FR 36,093 (May
23, 2002), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,130 (2002); Electronic Service
of Documents, 66 FR 50,591 (Oct. 4, 2001), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
35,539 (2001); Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No.
2001, 67 FR 31,043 (May 8, 2002), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127
(2002); Electronic Filing of Documents, Order No. 619, 65 FR 57,088
(Sept. 21, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,107 (2000); Electronic
Notification of Commission Issuances, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,574 (2004); Filing Via the Internet, Order
No. 703, 72 FR 65,659 (Nov. 23, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,259,
P 33 (2007) (Order No. 703).
    \6\ In fact, companies often arrange to view their own tariffs
to try and recreate either effective tariffs or the tariff in effect
during the time period of a particular proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. The database will provide easier access to tariffs and allow
the viewing of proposed tariff sections in context. One of the
principal benefits of such a database is the ability to do historical
research into tariffs. For example, proceedings such as complaints may
involve past tariff provisions that have already been revised by the
utility by the time the complaint is considered by the Commission. In
order to expeditiously process such filings, the Commission, the
parties, and the public need to be able to obtain the tariff provision
that applies to the time period under review, rather than the currently
effective tariff provision. In fact, the effectiveness of tariff
provisions arises in a number of contexts, particularly in complaint
cases, in which the Commission and the participants need to know the
effective tariff at a particular point in time.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P. v. PJM Interconnection,
LLC, 123 FERC ] 61,289, at P 39 n.77, 77-80 (2008) (in a complaint
case, the complainant and all other parties relied on the current
version of a tariff provision rather than the provision in effect at
the time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The set of NAESB standards provides a foundation for building
such a database. The standards define an extensible markup language
(XML) schema \8\ that will permit filers to assemble an XML filing
package that includes the tariff changes, the accompanying tariff-
related documents, such as the transmittal letter, rate schedules, and
spreadsheets that are required to accompany various tariff filings, and
other required information such as the proposed effective date of the
filing. Upon the receipt of the filing electronically, the XML schema
will enable the Commission to parse \9\ (divide) the filed package into
its component parts, place the filed documents into its eLibrary system
and provide the metadata \10\ that will permit automated organization
of the tariff and permit the Commission and the public to search that
database. As an example of the expanded public access to tariffs, the
Commission currently provides electronic access to approximately 150
NGA interstate pipeline tariffs utilizing the FASTR standards. That
access under the NAESB standards should expand to at least 1600
companies' tariffs. The NAESB standards also will provide flexibility
to companies making tariff filings by enabling each regulated company
to design or purchase software for creating tariff filings that will
best accommodate its filing patterns and needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ XML schemas facilitate the sharing of data across different
information systems, particularly via the Internet, by structuring
the data using tags to identify particular data elements. For
example, each filed tariff change will include tags for the relevant
information, such as the utility name, the tariff section being
changed, the name for that section, the proposed effective date, and
certain sections of tariff text. The tagged information can be
extracted and separately searched.
    \9\ Parse means to capture the hierarchy of the text in the XML
file and transform it into a form suitable for further processing.
    \10\ The term metadata is based on the Greek word ``meta''
meaning after or beyond and in epistemology means ``about.'' Thus,
metadata is data or information beyond or about other data. Digital
Libraries, by William Arms (M.I.T. Press 2000), http://
www.cs.cornell.edu/wya/DigLib/MS1999/Chapter1.html (visited April
11, 2008); The University of Queensland, http://
www.library.uq.edu.au/iad/ctmeta4.html (visited April 11, 2008); The
Linux Information Project, http://www.linfo.org/metadata.html
(visited April 11, 2008). For example, in the XML schema, one
required element is a proposed effective date and another element is
the text of the tariff provision. The proposed effective date would
be considered metadata relative to the tariff text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Some of the principal requirements of the standards and
regulations being adopted here are:

     Tariffs \11\ may be filed either using the current
sheet based nomenclature or using section-based numbering at the
choice of the filer.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term tariff is used herein to refer to tariffs, rate
schedules, jurisdictional contracts, and other jurisdictional
agreements that are required to be on file with the Commission.
    \12\ Section-based filings will not have to include the sheet
based nomenclature as a header or footer on the tariff page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tariffs may be filed as entire documents in either of
two electronic formats, RTF \13\ or

PDF,\14\ except with respect to open access transmission tariffs for
electric utilities and interstate natural gas companies which would
have to be filed as individual sheets or as sections in RTF format
as defined in the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ RTF refers to Rich Text Format which is a standardized
textual format that can be produced by a number of word processors.
    \14\ PDF refers to Portable Document Format which is a format
used for representing documents that closely resembles the original
formatting of the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Tariff filings can be served electronically using the
same approach used for electronic service of other Commission
filings.
     Filings of joint tariffs (tariffs covering two
regulated entities) may be made with a single tariff filing by the
entity designated to make the filing.
     Tariff filings for tariffs shared among companies (such
as regional transmission organization (RTO) tariffs) can be made
individually by any of the companies with rights to file tariff
changes.
     During initial baseline implementation of electronic
tariff filing, only open access transmission tariffs (OATTs) and
agreements need to be filed.
     After implementation of electronic tariff filing, all
new tariffs and agreements must be filed using the standards.
Existing agreements need to be filed electronically only when they
are revised.

    14. Although the comments generally supported the adoption of the
NAESB standards, some commenters suggested the adoption of alternative
approaches. As the Commission has previously stated: ``Standardization,
by definition, requires accommodation of varying interests and needs,
and rarely can there be a perfect standard satisfactory to all.'' \15\
We find that the NAESB standards best accommodate the needs of
regulated utilities in making filings electronically and the needs of
the Commission and the public for an electronic system that will enable
efficient, user-friendly retrieval of tariffs. We will discuss below
the technical requirements applicable to electronic tariff filing and
the comments received on various aspects of the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Standards For Business Practices Of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39,053, 39,057 (July 26, 1996), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,038, at 30,059 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Electronic Filing Requirements

1. Companies Required To File Tariffs Electronically
    15. The companies or entities covered by this Final Rule are those
that submit tariffs, rates, or contracts with the Commission pursuant
to the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978
(NGPA), the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA),
the Flood Control Act, the Bonneville Power Act, the Northwest Power
Planning Act, and other relevant statutes. Included among the companies
or entities covered by the requirements are: RTOs and independent
system operators (ISOs); power authorities and federal power marketing
administrations which file rates, contracts, or tariffs at the
Commission; intrastate natural gas pipelines that file rates and
operating conditions pursuant to the NGPA; interstate natural gas
pipelines subject to the NGA which serve only an industrial customer;
and companies or entities that may make voluntary tariff filings, such
as reciprocity filings pursuant to Order No. 888.
2. Procedures for Making Tariff Filings
    16. Using the new XML schema, companies, and all those authorized
to make filings on behalf of the company, such as outside counsel, will
make tariff related filings using the existing eFiling portal. As
described below, the filing process will be modified slightly from the
current eFiling process, in particular to include a company
registration that will provide increased security for the filing, as
well as additional e-mail notifications of potential problems with the
filing.
    17. The person making a tariff filing must have previously
registered in eFiling (Filer). Upon successfully logging into the FERC
eFiling portal, the Filer will be presented with the introductory
screen indicating success in accessing the site, and presented with a
link to the filing creation part of the site, which will include an
option to make a Tariff filing (eTariff portal).
    18. The eTariff portal will prompt the Filer to enter the company
identification number assigned during the company registration process
and an associated password. After successfully passing this step, the
Filer will upload an eTariff XML filing package that conforms to the
XML schema. Once the filing is uploaded, the eFiling web page will
indicate the filing has been submitted.
    19. After the filing has been submitted, a Confirmation of Receipt
will be e-mailed to both the e-mail address of the Filer and to the e-
mail address on file with FERC for the company identification number.
This e-mail only acknowledges the receipt of the filing through the
eFiling portal, provides a timestamp, and indicates that the filing is
placed in the queue to be processed.
    20. The XML filing package will be validated programmatically by an
eTariff verification process. Depending upon the success of the
verification process, a number of e-mails will be sent.

    Trying to keeping trackof,\ If the verification is
completed successfully, an e-mail will be sent to the validation e-
mail address provided in the XML package and to the e-mail address
associated with the company whose tariff is being revised.\16\ This
e-mail means only that the filing has passed the validation, not
that it has been officially accepted by the Secretary of the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This may not be the same company making the filing; for
example, in the case of a shared tariff, one notification will go to
the company making the filing and the other will go to the ISO or
RTO whose tariff is being revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If the XML filing package can be parsed (and the
validation e-mail address can be obtained), but the package does not
otherwise pass verification, an e-mail will be sent to the
validation e-mail address provided in the XML filing package. This
e-mail will provide information about the problems encountered
during the verification process.
     If the XML filing package cannot be parsed at all (is
unreadable), an e-mail will be sent to the Filer and to the e-mail
address associated with the company identification number indicating
a problem has been encountered with the filing.

    21. Once passed validation, the standard eFiling e-mail will be
sent to indicate whether the Secretary of the Commission has accepted
and docketed the filing or rejected it. As occurs with all filings, the
docketing e-mail does not guarantee that other filing deficiencies will
not result in rejection or other action pertaining to the filing later
in the review processes within the Commission. After this step, the
filing is passed on to eLibrary, the tariff database and other
Commission systems.
    22. INGAA requests that the Commission establish a procedure for
submission of tariff filings in the event of an electronic failure of
the Commission's eFiling and eTariff system. Such a request is beyond
the scope of this rulemaking. In Order No. 703, the Commission
delegated to the Secretary of the Commission the authority to develop
procedures for electronic filing, including procedures to be followed
in case of an electronic failure of the eFiling system.\17\ Since the
tariff filing component will be a part of the eFiling system, the same
procedures followed by the Secretary for electronic failure will apply
to eTariff as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Filing Via the Internet, Order No. 703, 72 FR 65659, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,259, at P 33 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. XML Schema and Tariff Database
    23. Under the standards, the tariff filing must be made in
conformance with the XML schema. The schema essentially is a method by
which the filing entities can communicate information to the
Commission. The schema proscribes the metadata elements and the textual
information that must be included in the filing

package. The data elements included in the XML package are required to
properly identify the nature of the tariff filing, organize the tariff
database, and maintain the proper relationship of tariff provisions in
relation to other provisions. For example, these elements will identify
which tariff provision is being revised so that the revised tariff
provision can be placed electronically in the proper location within
the tariff hierarchy. The filing package itself will include the text
of tariff changes as well as all filing attachments, such as
transmittal letters.\18\ The XML schema will be maintained on the
Commission Web site along with the required codes, descriptions, and
other requirements, as well as information that may be useful to those
developing filing software.\19\ Contemporaneously with the issuance of
this Final Rule, we are posting on the Web site the XML schema along
with the descriptions of the fields used in the schema, the instruction
manual and codes to be used with the XML schema.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The XML package must be filed as a zip (compressed) file.
    \19\ Currently located at http://www.ferc.gov under the tab
Documents and Filings, eTariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. Although we do not envision that the schema and related code
values will need to be changed frequently, the Secretary of the
Commission, under Order No. 703, has delegated authority to make
modifications to them if necessary.\20\ Before any such changes are
made, a notice of the proposed change will be issued sufficiently in
advance to permit companies to revise their software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 18 CFR 375.302(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. A few commenters object to the use of the XML schema for
electronic filing and argue that the Commission should simply rely on
filings in eLibrary.\21\ They argue that documents are maintained in
standard word processing formats and that filing such tariffs through
eLibrary would be easier on the filer. They assert that any tracking of
such filings could be accomplished by assigning a docket number. Nevada
Power, for example, argues that managing tariffs is a document
management, rather than a database function. It maintains that the
ability to access prior tariffs can be solved by retaining all previous
effective versions of the tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Duke Energy, EEI, Nevada Power, Southern California Edison,
and PSEG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. As explained above, eLibrary is principally a system that
manages and tracks filed documents based on individual proceedings
(dockets). It was neither designed, nor will it function well, to
retrieve individual sections or pages of tariffs that are filed in
different dockets over the course of many years. The tariff database,
on the other hand, will enable the Commission staff, as well as the
public, to access all or portions of a company's tariffs and rate
schedules compiled using date, text, and status criteria.
    27. The use of a database to track individual pages or sections of
tariffs is not inappropriate to the task of managing tariffs, as the
comments suggest. The Commission has for over twenty years maintained
the FASTR database for gas tariff filings and has made the results of
that database available to the public. The XML schema on which the
industry agreed will update the FASTR methodology to provide an even
more effective database for managing tariffs and conducting tariff
searches.
    28. Some commenters suggest assigning a docket or other unique
number to each tariff or rate schedule, and Nevada Power suggests that
instead of an electronic database, each utility could file an updated
history of changes to its tariff so that customers can determine where
to find specific sheets in which they are interested. Nevada Power
attached, as an example of its proposal, a history for its OATT that is
only six pages long covering a relatively small number of tariff
filings.
    29. These solutions would require users to search through reams of
filing materials to obtain the particular section or page of the tariff
that they need. Such solutions are not a reasonable substitute for a
database, given the large number of gas, oil, and electric companies,
some of whom may make hundreds of tariff filings a year, with a list of
changes that would eventually grow to hundreds of pages using the
Nevada Power approach. PJM Interconnection, LLC for example made over
130 tariff related filings in a one year period. Trying to keep track
of, and find, particular tariff provisions in this massive amount of
data using only a docket or other numeric identifier and a spreadsheet
would be a monumental task.\22\ But the tariff database, using the
metadata supplied with each filing, will be able to store and retrieve
this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Nevada Power's listing is similar to the Commission's
current numbering sheets used in its paper tariff database. These
numbering sheets run to 70 linear feet for all utilities. Using such
a system to research extensively revised tariffs is difficult, time
consuming, and prone to error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Those arguing for an eLibrary approach envision that tariff
documents would not be filed in individual sections, but as entire
documents. But not all industry members supported this entire document
approach. The gas pipelines, for example, supported the continued use
of sheet-based filings in which utilities file only the specific tariff
sheet that is being revised.\23\ Other tariffs are so large that filing
them as a single document would be unwieldy.\24\ The flexibility to
file tariffs using different approaches was key to developing the NAESB
standards, and the industry consensus supporting those standards.\25\
The approach suggested by the commenters would not provide the
flexibility the industry sought. The use of a database utilizing the
NAESB standards provides that flexibility and is the most efficient
method of processing such filings in a way that will permit the easy
and efficient integration of such individual filings into an entire
tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Minutes of February 1, 2007 eTariff Meeting, (``Ms. Nagle
[Tennessee Gas Pipeline] asked whether FERC Staff supported using a
section-based tariff system (in lieu of a sheet based system) and if
so does everyone need to move to the section-based system''), http:/
/www.naesb.org/pdf2/etariff020107fm.doc.
    \24\ For example, PJM's posted tariff is over 8 megabytes.
http://www.pjm.com/documents/agreements.html, and the California
ISO's tariff is over 4 megabytes. ISO New England (http://www.iso-
ne.com/regulatory/tariff/index.html) and the New York ISO (http://
www.nyiso.com/public/documents/tariffs/oatt.jsp) post tariffs that
already are divided into sections.
    \25\ Minutes of July 27, 2008 eTariff Meeting, at P 5
(``flexibility is present to support whole document filings, sheet
based filings and section based filings. This flexibility is
provided for individual companies and for the industries themselves,
as a given company may choose to use any of the three choices
depending on the filing to be made. This flexibility is a key
underlining assumption from which all the work papers were developed
and as such, was reflected in the vote just taken''), http://
www.naesb.org/pdf3/etariff072707fm.doc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. As we have discussed above, the development of standards
requires cooperation and accommodation between companies with different
needs and requirements. The NAESB process provided a means by which
various members of the affected industries and customers, including
those from the oil pipeline industry, could develop a set of standards
that reasonably meet the needs of a large range of different types of
tariff filers, large and small companies, frequent and infrequent
tariff filers, companies using different methods of storing tariffs,
including databases, word processing software, and spreadsheets. After
examining a variety of alternative approaches over 24 days of meetings,
a consensus of the gas and electric industry \26\ agreed upon the use
of the data elements and XML schema as the most efficient means for

electronically filing tariffs.\27\ We therefore will adopt the database
approach and standards as approved through the NAESB process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Although the oil pipelines and their customers did not have
an official vote during the NAESB process, they participated in
formulating the requirements and have supported the data elements
and XML schema in their comments in this rulemaking.
    \27\ APS, an active participant in the beta testing of the
Commission's original software, as well as a participant in the
NAESB process, recognizes that the standards provide ``a useable
platform for industry compliance with the new standardized
requirements for electronic filing of tariff, as well as a
convenient tool for market participants and FERC staff to access and
review tariffs and agreements * * * [and this methodology] to be the
superior choice to implement this Commission requirement.'' APS
Comment, at 2. AOPL similarly recognizes that compromises were
necessary to meet the needs of all the industries, stating the
standards ``reflect significant improvements to the proposed
electronic filing regulations, in light of the particular
circumstances and needs of the oil pipeline industry.'' AOPL
Comment, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. CAISO asks that the RTOs not be required to provide all the
metadata required by the standards or, if it is not possible to
eliminate the metadata, that such metadata be kept to a minimum. The
technical meetings with NAESB were designed to develop the minimum
required metadata that would be necessary to feed and operate the
database. The CAISO has not indicated specific metadata elements that
can safely be eliminated and still maintain the integrity of the
database.

B. Tariff Filing Requirements

    33. The Commission's current regulations require companies to file
tariff sheets that include specifically defined nomenclature to
identify each sheet of the tariff.\28\ A company is required to file
only the tariff sheets containing the tariff revisions or changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 18 CFR 35.9; 154.102(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Based on the NAESB meetings and the comments submitted, we will
allow far more flexibility in the structure and identification of
tariffs. Companies may determine to structure their tariffs either
using the existing tariff sheet format or as sections. Companies will
also be given more flexibility to file tariffs either by dividing the
tariff into sheets or sections and filing only the revised sheet or
section, or for a wide range of tariff documents, by filing the entire
tariff document that is revised. In order to ensure that the Commission
and the public have the ability to identify specific tariff provisions,
versioning information is required to be included as part of the XML
package. But, this information has been simplified and will no longer
need to be included as text on individual sheets or sections, with the
exception of certain documents filed as PDFs.
1. Sheet or Section Filing Requirements
    35. In order to compile the tariff database, the standards require
companies to file tariff text as a specific data element. Companies,
however, will be permitted to choose whether to continue to number
tariff provisions as individual tariff sheets (e.g., Sheet No. 1) or
sections (e.g., Section 1.1.1). Except as discussed in the following
section with respect to open access tariffs, companies will be allowed
to determine based on the nature of the tariff and frequency of filing
whether to file tariffs by breaking the tariff into sheets or sections
or by filing the tariff as an entire document. Companies that initially
file using the entire document option will be allowed later to divide
the tariff document into sections or sheets. However, a company that
has already broken its tariff into sections or sheets, will not be able
to recompile those sheets or sections and use the entire document
option unless a company files a request for waiver.
    36. The NAESB standards provide that tariff text must be filed
either using the RTF file format or the PDF file format.\29\ Tariffs
filed under the entire document option may be filed either in RTF or
PDF. Tariffs filed as sections or sheets must be filed in RTF, due to
limitations on the ability to process and assemble PDF files.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The requirements adopted by the Commission in Order No. 703
will apply to PDF formatted documents filed as tariff text. Tariffs
filed in PDF format must use the print-to-pdf feature as opposed to
an unsearchable scanned format, except that tariff documents
existing only on paper may be scanned into PDF. Order No. 703, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,259 at P 23. We, however, encourage filers that
scan old paper tariff documents to use an optical character
recognition program to convert the scanned file to text prior to
filing, so that copy and paste and search functions may be used.
    \30\ RTF is a text format that will enable the Commission's
software to assemble quickly the sheets or sections into a complete
tariff document. In contrast, PDF is not a textual format, and does
not permit such processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. The comments support the flexibility to use sheet, section, and
entire document options using PDF format.\31\ AOPL for example
``strenuously supports this aspect of the rule which provides benefits
to both shippers and pipelines.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Midwest ISO, INGAA, and AOPL.
    \32\ AOPL Comment, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. TransCanada asks that the Commission clarify whether and under
what conditions companies that initially file using the sheet-based
option may be allowed to later re-file using the section-based option,
and vice-versa. For both the shipper and Commission staff benefit, we
certainly would not encourage utilities to switch back and forth
frequently between a sheet and a section-based system, because such a
change will make the ability to research past provisions more
difficult.\33\ But because both the sheet and section approaches
provide equivalent granularity and flexibility for users, utilities can
make such a change without obtaining special permission. The only time
special permission is required is if a utility wants to covert from a
sheet or section based approach to entire document, because such a
change does reduce usability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The database will store each sheet or section so that a
user wishing to examine a past sheet or section can do so. If the
utility decides to change between sheets and sections, the prior
history of a particular provision may be more difficult to access.
For example, in a sheet to section change, the past sheet (record)
will still appear in the database, but it will not be linked to the
section (record) that will replace it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. AGA requests that tariffs be fully text searchable. As
described above, all tariffs, including those filed using PDF, must be
filed in text searchable format.
2. Gas and Electric Open Access Transmission Tariffs
    40. Tariffs for interstate natural gas pipelines and electric
utilities must be filed by breaking the document into sheets or
sections. Unlike individual service agreements or contracts that affect
only the signatories to the agreements, the open access transmission
tariffs affect a wide variety of customers and are the most frequently
revised. Moreover, because of the breadth of these tariffs, and the
need to review and research portions of these tariffs, it would not be
efficient for staff or for the public to have these documents refiled
in their entirety every time a company proposes to revise an individual
tariff section or page.
    41. We are revising Sec. Sec.  35.9 and 154.102 to require that
open access transmission tariffs, which will include other open access
documents and documents of general applicability, such as ISO/RTO
operating agreements and market rules, must be filed as sheets or
sections. Because the electric OATTs are based on the Commission's pro
forma OATT, we have specified the minimum required divisions for such
filings. For non-ISO/RTO OATTs, the OATT must be divided at least at
the section 1.0 level, with individual sections for each schedule or
attachment. Because ISO/RTO OATTs are much more complex, ISO/RTOs will
be required to divide their OATTs at the 1.1 level at a minimum. Filers
are encouraged to use even smaller divisions that are appropriate to
their individual tariffs and filing patterns. In addition, to aid
electric utilities in filing their OATTs, we are posting on our Web
site a pro forma OATT divided into the largest

allowable sections, as well as information that will help companies
develop Microsoft[supreg] Word macros to electronically divide tariffs
at this level.
    42. Because we have not specified a pro forma interstate natural
gas transportation tariff, the regulation we adopt requires that the
interstate natural gas pipeline open access tariffs filed as sections
be divided so that each section includes only related subject matter
and is of reasonable length.\34\ Negotiated rate agreements and other
non-conforming service agreements need not be divided, but can be filed
as entire documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 18 CFR 154.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. EEI requests that non-RTOs be allowed to file their OATTs as
single documents, maintaining that these are relatively static
documents and that allowing the filing of an entire document will
reduce the time and expense necessary to break such tariffs into
sections and may simplify the filing software that such companies need
to build or acquire.
    44. We will not relax the requirement to at least divide the pro
forma OATTs at the 1.0 level. As described above, OATTs can be large
and unwieldy documents and run to over 160 pages; dividing the document
at the 1.0 level will ensure that Commission staff and the public can
review and search for tariff provisions relating to the same subject
matter. Dividing the OATT at the 1.0 level will result in only 57
sections, each addressing a different topic, and such division will
only have to be done once. Moreover, EEI maintains that most OATTs are
maintained as Microsoft Word documents. Commission staff has developed
and will post a macro that in many cases will divide the OATT at the
appropriate level. Commission staff also has posted a pro forma OATT
divided into the requisite sections that can be used as a reference.
Creating the sectionalized pro forma OATT manually only took one hour.
In balancing the burden of a one-time conversion of an OATT into
individual sections against the benefits of being able to easily locate
and search for specific OATT sections, we find that the benefits of
requiring that OATTs be broken into sections outweigh the costs.
    45. AGA argues that the Commission should set a minimum requirement
for gas pipelines similar to that set for electric utilities and
suggests that the minimum should at least match the table of contents
and include as a separate section each topic listed under General Terms
and Conditions of Service. We find that this suggestion does provide
useful guidance as to the minimum sections required and therefore
revise the regulation in Sec.  154.102 accordingly.
3. Versioning
    46. The Commission currently requires each tariff page to include a
version number that can be used to identify the particular revision of
that page (e.g., First Revised Sheet No. 1 would replace Original Sheet
No. 1). Because tariff provisions change, often frequently, this
convention is useful over time for identifying and referring to
particular tariff provisions in orders. With the adoption of the NAESB
standards, the versioning requirement will be modified and made less
complicated.
    47. The NAESB standards require that each sheet, section, or entire
tariff document be identified with a version number in an x.y.z
format.\35\ The x.y.z format will accommodate the same level of
identification as our existing nomenclature, including items such as
squeezed and retroactive sheets. As long as each tariff section, sheet,
or entire document is identified uniquely, companies can choose how
complex to make their identification. Some companies may want to
continue this detailed approach to better identify the placement and
relative position of tariff sheets and sections, and the x.y.z format
will accommodate such identification. Other companies may not choose to
include such a detailed hierarchy of changes. Companies, for example,
may choose simply to numerically number each section, sheet, or entire
tariff document as they file it, using just the x field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The x.y.z format is a representation of the version
(designation) of a tariff filing where ``x'' represents revision
number for the given tariff provision (tariff record), ``y''
delineates that it is a substitute for a previously filed tariff
provision, and ``z'' indicates that it is a ``squeeze'' tariff
provision. A ``squeeze'' tariff provision occurs when a tariff
provision needs to be made effective on a date which occurs between
the effective dates of two tariff provisions that already are filed
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. As proposed in the NOPR, and adopted in this Final Rule,
identification of versioning need not be included in the text of the
individual tariff revisions that are filed with the exception of
tariffs filed in PDF format. Companies however may choose to include
such identification in the tariff text if they desire. The XML schema
requires that the requisite versioning information be included as
metadata, and versioning information will be made available to staff
and the public in the tariff database. Moreover, to ensure that the
versioning information is available to the public on eLibrary, the
Commission will use the metadata provided in the XML package to
generate a document on eLibrary that contains the appropriate
versioning information. Because we are creating this document by
electronically combining information from the XML package, the
formatting of the versions and tariff text may not appear identical to
the filing made by the company.
    49. The only exception to this rule is for tariff documents filed
using PDF. Because PDF is not a textual format and does not permit easy
electronic manipulation, we cannot generate a document for eLibrary
that contains the correct versioning information. For these documents,
therefore, the Instruction Guide requires that the first page of the
tariff document include the required information: Company name, tariff
title (if applicable), and the appropriate version number.
    50. INGAA suggests that for gas tariffs, the regulations should
continue to require that the first section or sheet of the tariff
include: The FERC Gas Tariff Volume Number, the name of the natural gas
company, as well as the name, title, address, telephone number, e-mail
address and facsimile number of a person to whom communications
concerning the tariff should be sent. We will modify the regulation to
continue this requirement.
    51. EEI recommends that the Commission eliminate various formatting
requirements required under Order No. 614.\36\ As we have discussed
above, we are eliminating a variety of the required formatting
requirements because they are included in the XML metadata and the
other formatting requirements are included in the standards. As a
result, the formatting and filing requirements of Order No. 614 have
been supplanted by the regulations and requirements addressed in this
rulemaking.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Designation of Electric Rate Schedule Sheets, Order No.
614, 65 FR 18,221 (Apr. 7, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,096
(2000).
    \37\ The provisions of Sec.  35.5 regarding rejection of
material (adopted in Order No. 614) are being retained. In filing
pre-existing contracts and rate schedules, electric utilities are
still required to eliminate the use of supplements and include in
their filings only effective provisions. See 18 CFR 35.1 (revised to
remove the use of supplements); Boston Edison Company, 98 FERC ]
61,292 (2002) (utilities must file effective tariff provisions);
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, 98 FERC ] 61,122, at
61,366 (2002) (utility required to remove tariff language that was
no longer effective from its rate schedule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Marked Tariff Changes
    52. The Commission's current interstate natural gas pipeline (Sec.
154.201) and electric utility regulations (Sec.  35.10), require
companies

to provide a marked version of the tariff text in the tariff filing
indicating the changes and deletions made to the existing tariff text.
The oil pipeline regulations (Sec.  341.3) provide for the use of
special symbols to denote changes.
    53. We are continuing the requirement for filing marked versions of
tariffs. We also are modifying the symbols used by the oil pipelines
using the symbols proposed by AOPL so that the symbols can be entered
into a find or search message box using keystrokes available on a
keyboard. In contrast to past practice in which tariff changes were
filed only as individual sheets or supplements, the standards permit
tariff documents to be filed as large sections or as entire documents.
Although we are confident that filing companies will not intentionally
make unmarked changes to tariff text, we want to ensure that both staff
and the public are not put in the position of having to read the entire
tariff text of large sections or an entire document to ensure that
unmarked changes were not made. As a precaution, therefore, we are
revising our regulations to make clear that only the sections of the
tariff document appropriately identified in the filing will be
considered part of the filing and any acceptance of a filing by the
Commission will not constitute acceptance of an unmarked tariff change.
    54. INGAA supports the regulation, but requests that the Commission
modify it to state that ``interested parties may comment only on those
revisions appropriately designated and marked to constitute the filing;
provided, however, comments on unmarked and undesignated language will
be permitted when such comments provide useful information to the
Commission for the resolution of issues directly related to the
filing.'' We will not adopt the proposed language as part of the
regulation because, as INGAA itself recognizes, determinations as to
the appropriateness of such comments need to be made on a case by case
basis. The Commission must in individual cases determine if the protest
or comment on the unchanged tariff text bears upon the justness and
reasonableness of the proposed tariff change or is a request for the
Commission to take action under section 5 of the Natural Gas Act to
revise the unchanged provision.
    55. AOPL argues that the Commission should remove the proposed
language in Sec.  341.3 of the regulations arguing that a filed tariff
change should be deemed effective even if a symbol is misplaced or
incorrect. AOPL states that under long-standing ICA precedent the
omission of a symbol in a tariff denoting a change in rate does not
affect the validity or applicability of the tariff item.
    56. We never meant for this provision of the regulations to
constitute a trap that would penalize an oil pipeline if it simply used
the wrong symbol or failed to include a symbol in the tariff as long as
its overall filing was sufficient to provide notice of the proposed
change. We therefore have revised the regulation from that proposed in
the NOPR to make clear the regulation does not apply to an improper or
omitted symbol so long as the change is identified in the tariff
filing.\38\ The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that shippers
and the Commission receive the required notice of proposed changes by
the pipeline and that shippers are not penalized by the failure of the
pipeline to provide the requisite notice. As part of the NAESB process,
agreement was reached on allowing oil pipelines to file entire tariffs
as PDF files. Because of the nature of PDF files, however, it will be
difficult for the Commission staff or the pipeline's customers to
create a document comparison of a PDF document. Thus, the oil pipeline
would be in the best position to create a document comparison, and we
find the burden of ensuring proper notice legitimately should fall on
the oil pipeline making the filing. The oil pipeline could for example
satisfy this requirement by indicating its changes in the transmittal
letter or attaching to the transmittal letter a redline-strikeout
version of the tariff being revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The NOPR used the phrase ``revisions that are marked
appropriately,'' which in the context of the oil pipeline
regulations might be read to connote marked with the correct symbol.
We are revising the regulation to read ``revisions to tariffs
identified in the filing'' which will cover revisions that are
explained in the transmittal letter even if the symbol is incorrect
or omitted in the tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. Section 6(3) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) recognizes
that it is the responsibility of an oil pipeline in making a filing to
change its tariff to ``plainly state the changes proposed to be made in
the schedule then in force.'' ICC v. American Trucking Association,\39\
cited by AOPL, does not establish the invalidity of the Commission's
regulation. In American Trucking, the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC) sought to reject tariff rates based on violations of rate bureau
agreements. While the Court found that the ICC was without statutory
authority retroactively to reject a tariff in violation of the rate
bureau agreement after the tariff has taken effect, the Court found
that the ICC did have authority to condition tariff approval in a
manner reasonably tied to statutory objectives. In this regulation, we
are not retroactively rejecting a tariff we have previously accepted;
rather we are imposing a regulatory condition governing the filing
prior to acceptance that will ensure that customers are protected in
the event that the oil pipeline fails to provide sufficient notice of a
tariff change. Moreover, the regulation does not determine the
regulatory outcome of any challenge to the unidentified rate. We
recognize the regulatory differences between the ICA and the FPA and
NGA,\40\ and that interpretations of the ICA have provided that, in
some circumstances, the failure to identify a rate change could be
deemed a technical defect that would not necessarily void an
unidentified rate, but could subject the pipeline to damages or other
remedies as provided in the ICA.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 467 U.S. 354 (1984) (American Trucking).
    \40\ The ICA for example provides a two-year period for
reparations, which is not part of the NGA or FPA. 49 App. U.S.C.
16(3)(b) (1988).
    \41\ See Genstar v. ICC, 665 F.2d 1304, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
(for rates with procedural irregularities, the remedy is correction
of the ``harm if any caused by unlawfulness or irregularity''). For
example, a shipper that does not have effective notice, may not be
able to protest the filed rate and may only be aware of, and
challenge, a rate after it has received a bill. After such a
challenge is filed, the Commission could review the rate to
determine if it is just and reasonable. If the Commission were to
determine that the filed rate is not just and reasonable, but that a
different rate is justified, the damages could be computed based on
the difference between what the pipeline charged and the just and
reasonable rate ultimately determined by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Clean Tariff Sheets Filed as Attachments
    58. As discussed above, the tariff text for use by the database
will be filed as a separate data element, and the Commission may not be
able to generate a formatted version of that tariff text acceptable to
the filer for inclusion in eLibrary. For this reason, the standards
provide that companies will also include as an attachment to their
filing a clean copy of the relevant tariff sheets, sections, or entire
document formatted as the filer prefers.\42\ The clean version of the
tariff text may be filed using any electronic file format currently
approved by the Secretary of the Commission for eFiling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The text of the tariff provisions (including the entire
tariff document if that option is chosen) to be included in the
database must, of course, match exactly the text of the clean copy
of the tariff provisions filed as an attachment. The standards also
will require the company to include a non-formatted plain text copy
of the tariff provisions for search purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. AOPL requests clarification as to which of the tariff documents
included in the XML package, including the marked version made by the
utility,

constitutes the official version of the tariff filing. As stated above,
no substantive differences should exist between the tariff provisions
filed as part of the XML data and the tariff provisions filed as
attachments. To the extent that such differences exist, and they are
significant, they will need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis by
the Commission.
6. Joint, Shared, and Section 206 Filings
    60. All utilities, but principally the electric industry, may make
joint and shared tariff filings. Joint filings refer to tariffs
applicable to more than one company. Shared tariffs refer to a tariff
that can be revised by one or more parties. Shared tariffs principally
refer to ISO or RTO tariffs, sections of which can be revised by the
ISO and RTO as well as by individual transmission owners. Section 206
tariff filings again relate principally to ISOs and RTOs, which may not
have the ability to make tariff filings under section 205 of the FPA,
but have the right under their operating agreements to make tariff
filings under section 206 of the FPA. The following approaches should
ensure that parties with filing rights can make appropriate filings
without undue burden.
a. Joint Tariff Filings
    61. Section 35.1(a) of the Commission's regulations establishes two
methods by which public utilities that are parties to the same rate
schedule may file the rate schedule with the Commission: (1) Each
public utility can file the rate schedule itself, or (2) ``the rate
schedule may be filed by one such public utility and all other parties
having an obligation to file may post and file a certificate of
concurrence.'' \43\ Prior to Order No. 614, when filers made a single
filing, Commission staff would copy the rate schedule or tariff for the
number of joint filers, place the appropriate designations on the
documents, and put them in the tariff books. In Order No. 614, the
Commission stated in the preamble that ``on joint services, each
utility offering a service must file its own tariff sheets.'' \44\
Currently, we therefore receive a single filing usually from a
designated filer with identical tariff sheets for each joint filing
utility, except that each utility's tariff contains the appropriate
sheet designation for that utility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 18 CFR 35.1(a).
    \44\ Order No. 614, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,096 at 31,503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. In the Commission's current state of software development, we
are not in a position to permit a single designated filer to submit
tariff provisions on behalf of multiple entities as part of a single
filing. We, however, recognize the inefficiency and confusion for the
filer, the staff, and the public in having multiple identical filings
made on behalf of different companies. To deal with this issue, the
following approach will minimize the burden on the filer and also
provide ready access to the tariff.
    63. We will no longer require utilities to follow the Order No. 614
preamble instructions to file multiple copies of a tariff. Instead, the
joint filers will be permitted to designate one filer to submit a
single tariff filing for inclusion in its database that reflects the
joint tariff, along with the requisite certificates of concurrence. The
non-designated joint filers would include in their tariff database a
tariff section consisting of a single page or section that would
provide the appropriate name of the tariff and the identity of the
utility designated as the filer for the joint tariff. In this way, the
staff or the public will be able to find quickly the appropriate tariff
in the database, without the need for multiple filings by each of the
filers.
    64. EEI maintains that parties with joint tariffs should have
flexibility to make modifications to these tariffs, but it does not
object to the procedure outlined above. We, therefore, will adopt this
approach to joint tariffs.
b. Shared Tariffs
    65. Shared tariffs refer principally to ISO and RTO tariffs,
portions of which may be revised by FPA section 205 filings by the ISO/
RTO or other transmission owners. Depending on the tariff section
involved, one party may have exclusive rights to modify the section or
multiple parties may have rights to modify the section. The structure
of all the ISO and RTO tariffs as well as their filings rights are
different.
    66. In order to file revisions to shared tariffs today, parties
with shared filing rights have to share information about the tariff,
such as the current section numbering and sheet designations as well as
the text of the provisions. Some ISOs and RTOs provide in their tariffs
that the ISO/RTO is responsible for administering the tariff.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Midwest ISO Transmission Tariff, Appendix K, Sec.  F.
http://mktweb.midwestiso.org/publish/Document/469a41_10a26fa6c1e_-
6d790a48324a/TOA%20(As%20Accepted%20on%2012-03-07%20EC07-
89).pdf?action=download&--property= Attachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. The use of electronic filing will provide parties with shared
tariffs with greater opportunities to develop electronic filing methods
that fit their respective tariff structure, filing rights, and business
processes. First, parties in organized markets can develop or obtain
filing software to be shared among those with filing rights that
imposes restrictions on filing rights as applicable under the
individual ISO or RTO tariff. Second, ISOs and RTOs can agree to make
all filings on behalf of the members in order to maintain
administrative control over the tariff. Third, each of the respective
parties with filing rights can continue to make individual filings as
they do today by sharing certain relevant tariff and metadata among the
parties with shared rights.
    68. With respect to the third option, individual filings by each
company, we have developed a method for making such filings. The party
initiating the filing (Company A) would need to have an eRegistered
party (Filer) log-on to make the filing. The Filer would have to know
Company A's company identification number and password. In order to
make such a filing, the ISO and RTO would have to share with Company A
its company identification number (but not its password) and tariff
identifier used in the XML schema for the ISO or RTO's tariff along
with other required metadata for making the filing.
    69. Currently, for some ISOs and RTOs, when a transmission owner
makes a section 205 filing to revise an ISO or RTO tariff, the ISO or
RTO is notified only through service. In order to provide greater
security and more immediate notification to the ISO or RTO, we will
provide an e-mail notification to the ISO or RTO when the XML filing
passes verification checks. This notification will ensure that the ISO
or RTO can detect immediately any potential unauthorized filing.
Moreover, because the person making the filing will be eRegistered and
will be using the company identification number of the filer (Company
A), we will be able to easily identify who made the filing in case any
questions are raised.
    70. New England PTOs support the Commission's approach to shared
document filings, but request that the Commission provide additional
time for possible needed revisions to the OATT of ISO New England. As
discussed later, the Commission will be providing sufficient time to
develop software and implement the electronic filing requirements. Such
time should be sufficient to make whatever tariff or other changes may
be needed to accommodate shared document filings. If ISO New England
can show that

additional time is required, it may file for an extension of time.
    71. While generally supporting the Commission's approach, ISO New
England suggests that the Commission should provide additional security
for shared tariff filers by developing and administering a database
that would permit a tariff owner to control the parties authorized to
file tariff changes to its tariff.\46\ We have closely examined the
potential security risks to the eTariff system and find that at this
point the benefits of ISO New England's proposal for increased security
do not justify the enhanced costs for the Commission to build and
support an administrative Web site and database necessary to implement
ISO New England's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ For example, the Web site would permit ISO New England to
select those transmission owners with the authority to make filings
to amend the ISO New England's OATT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. The eTariff system will be more secure than the current paper
filing system and the current eFiling system, and we have not
experienced unauthorized filings to date through either our paper or
eFiling system. In the current eFiling system, a filer need only be
eRegistered.\47\ The eTariff system, however, will provide additional
security because in addition to eRegistration, the filer must possess
both a company registration number and a password. These forms of
identification will be limited to regulated utilities. The RTO's or
ISO's password will be unique to each company and need not be shared
with another utility having shared filing rights, thereby providing
enhanced security. Further, any filing made using the RTO's or ISO's
company registration number will generate an e-mail to the RTO or ISO,
so that it can monitor actively any potential unauthorized filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Paper filings are delivered by courier or mail with no way
for the Commission to verify that the filing is authorized by the
purported filer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    73. After comparing the potential benefits of ISO New England's
approach against the costs of implementation, we have decided not to
try to implement the authorized filer proposal. If we find after
implementation that additional security is necessary, we will
reconsider this option at that time.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ First Energy raises a question about filings by outside
counsel, and similarly suggests a system of having administrators
provide passwords with respect to filings by outside counsel. As
discussed above, outside counsel will be able to submit filings as
long as they adhere to the standards, and the company provides them
with the appropriate filing identifiers, passwords, and other
information. Just as companies have to protect their internal use of
passwords, they will need to protect against the use of passwords by
outside counsel or others making filings on their behalf. Companies
of course can design their own software to provide administrative
password rights, but for the reasons discussed above, we do not find
it necessary for the Commission to provide such administrative
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Section 206 Filings Related to ISOs/RTOs
    74. ISOs and RTOs sometimes have tariff or operating agreement
provisions that require a certain percentage of stakeholder support for
making FPA section 205 filings. As a result, if the requisite
stakeholder approval is not obtained, ISOs and RTOs have retained
rights to make filings pursuant to section 206 of the FPA, and may make
a single filing under both section 205 and section 206.\49\ In
addition, transmission owners that are part of the RTO also may file
complaints under FPA section 206 contending that the ISO or RTO tariff
is unjust and unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, LLC, 115 FERC ] 61,079
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. For ISO or RTO transmission owners filing a complaint against
the ISO or RTO, the complaint must be filed pursuant to the standard
complaint mechanism. While these transmission owners may have legal
rights to make section 205 filings to change certain aspects of the ISO
or RTO tariff, they do not have any different rights than any other
party to file complaints under section 206. If the Commission agrees
with the complainant, the ISO or RTO would then be directed to submit a
compliance filing through the eTariff portal to make the required
tariff changes.
    76. However, the RTO or ISO making a filing to revise its own
tariff pursuant to section 206 should make such a filing through the
eTariff portal with the appropriate tariff revisions using the NAESB
standards. Because such a filing relates to the ISO's or RTO's own
tariff, and the ISO or RTO has a reserved right to make such a section
206 filing, such a filing is more similar to a standard tariff filing
by a utility as opposed to a complaint filing. In addition, since RTOs
or ISOs may make a single filing in one proceeding under both sections
205 and 206, it seems appropriate to have such a filing made using the
standard eTariff mechanism.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ No comments were filed on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Other Business Practice Changes

1. Electronic Service
    77. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to permit electronic
service for initial filings.\51\ We are revising our regulations to
permit electronic service according to the same procedures and
protocols used for other forms of service under the Commission's
regulations.\52\ Customers and state agencies wishing to receive
service will be required to provide the company with an applicable e-
mail address (since a service list will not exist at the time of an
initial filing). Any customer believing it is unable to receive
electronic service will need to request a waiver of electronic service
as provided in the regulations.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Notice of Additional Proposals and Procedures, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 35,551 at P 7.
    \52\ 18 CFR 385.2010.
    \53\ 18 CFR 390.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. EEI asks for further clarification of how electronic service
should be made, including questions about the provision of e-mail
addresses, suggestions related to the use of generic service e-mail
addresses and the ability to serve after a filing has been posted. In
this rulemaking, we have expanded the scope of electronic service to
include initial filings. We have expressly provided in the regulations
that customers must provide an e-mail address for initial service to
the utility unless they obtain a waiver of electronic service under
Part 390 of our regulations. Other than establishing a procedure for
obtaining customer e-mail address, all other aspects of electronic
service for initial filings will be the same as those for service in a
proceeding with a service list, including the e-mail addresses to be
used for service, and the use of a link to the filing in eLibrary as
the means of providing service.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 18 CFR 385.2010(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Attachment Documents
    79. Under the standards, all attachments to a filing, such as the
transmittal letter, testimony, and cost-of-service statements, will be
included as part of the XML package. The attachments must meet the
formatting requirements for any other eFiled document, as set forth by
the Secretary of the Commission. AOPL suggests deleting the requirement
to file a proposed form of protective agreement in the existing (and
proposed) Sec.  348.2. AOPL does not explain its suggestion, and we do
not find that the adoption of electronic filing requirements for
tariffs necessitates removal of the requirement to file proposed forms
of protective agreements. Under the NAESB standards, proposed forms of
protective agreements must be filed as attachment documents.
3. Withdrawal of Pending Tariff Filings and Amendments to Tariff
Filings
    80. As discussed in the 2004 NOPR, the electric, gas, and oil
industries have

different procedures for withdrawing and amending a tariff filing. For
example, the regulations governing oil pipelines permit withdrawal of
proposed tariff filings before the tariff filing is effective,\55\
while the regulations for electric and gas companies do not address
withdrawal of tariff filings prior to suspension.\56\ Because tariff
withdrawal and amendment filings affect the status of tariff proposals,
standardization of these procedures is needed in order to effectuate an
electronic tariff system. We are therefore revising our regulations to
permit a company to withdraw in its entirety a tariff filing, which has
not become effective, and upon which no Commission or delegated order
has been issued, by filing a withdrawal motion with the Commission. The
withdrawal will become effective, and the filing deemed withdrawn, at
the end of 15 days, so long as no answer in opposition to the
withdrawal motion is filed within that period and the Commission has
not acted to deny the withdrawal motion. If such an answer in
opposition is made, the withdrawal is not effective until a Commission
or delegated order accepting the withdrawal is issued. In order to
ensure that the tariff database remains accurate, such withdrawal
filings will need to be made through the eTariff portal using the XML
filing requirement so that the appropriate data elements can be
revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 18 CFR 341.13.
    \56\ 18 CFR 35.17; 154.205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    81. Electric utilities and interstate pipelines file amendments or
modifications to tariff provisions to make substantive changes to their
filings as well as to correct minor errors. Because such modifications
can have substantive effect, we are revising Sec.  35.17 and Sec.
154.205 to make clear that the filing of an amendment or modification
to a tariff provision will toll the period for action on the prior
filing and establish a new period for action.
    82. In the 2004 NOPR, we recognized that in the past, we have
sought to process minor changes filed in NGA cases within the 30-day
statutory period, and we will continue to try to do so for those
amendments that are not significant or do not create a major
substantive difference in the tariff proposal. INGAA filed a comment
asking to include the following in the regulatory text: ``For tariff
filings containing minor changes in the tariff proposal, the Commission
will seek to process minor changes filed in NGA cases, within the 30-
day statutory notice period for the original filing.'' While we intend
to try to abide by our past practice, we find this language
inappropriate for inclusion in our regulations, because it only
reflects a goal or aim, and is not sufficiently precise to be included
as a regulation.
4. Motions
    83. Several types of motions may be made by regulated entities that
do not include tariff sheets, but that affect the status of a tariff
filing. For example, interstate natural gas pipelines may file motions
to move suspended tariff sheets into effect, and other regulated
companies may file motions to change the effective dates of tariff
filings or to withdraw tariff filings. Because such filings affect the
metadata associated with the tariff filing, such motions must be filed
through the eTariff portal using the XML filing package.
5. Rate Sheets for Tariff Filings by Intrastate and Hinshaw Pipelines
    84. Under the Commission's current regulations in section 284,
subparts C and G, an intrastate or Hinshaw pipeline must provide the
Commission with an election of how it will determine its interstate
service rates. An intrastate or Hinshaw pipeline also is required to
file with the Commission, within 30 days of the commencement of
service, a statement of operating conditions, which includes the rate
election it has made, but which currently does not require a statement
of the interstate rates to be charged. The interstate rates are
included only as part of the overall filing.
    85. In implementing the proposal for electronic tariff filing, the
statement of operating conditions will be placed in the tariff
database. To facilitate easier access by the Commission and the public
to the interstate service rates of intrastate and Hinshaw pipelines, we
are revising Sec.  284.123 of the regulations to require intrastate and
Hinshaw pipelines to include a statement of their interstate service
rates as part of the statement of operating conditions that will appear
in the tariff database. Including a statement of interstate service
rates in the statement of operating conditions will ensure that all
relevant information related to interstate service will be accessible
in the tariff database.

D. Regulatory Text

    86. Many commenters submitted detailed proposals to revise
regulatory text in a number of areas. We very much appreciate the
interest that has been paid to trying to ensure that the regulatory
text is as accurate as possible. We have carefully reviewed those
suggestions, included the ones we find appropriate, and discussed above
the substantive revisions we determined not to make. The suggestions we
did not adopt were stylistic, linguistic, or syntactical revisions
that, in some cases, did not conform to the requirements of the Federal
Register, or that we did not find superior to the regulatory text we
are adopting. We will not discuss each of these proposed revisions
individually.

E. Transition Procedures

1. Testing of Software
    87. We recognize that after the Final Rule, companies and third-
party vendors developing tariff filing software will need time for
development as well as a mechanism for testing their software to make
sure that their filings will be accepted by the Commission. We will
therefore provide a testing site where companies can make test
electronic filings to determine whether their XML packages can be
received and can be parsed in order to determine if the XML package can
be opened and broken into its constituent parts, and to verify whether
the metadata supplied meets the requirements of the XML schema.
    88. Further, as the development process continues, we think it will
be useful to continue the dialog among FERC staff and the industries
involved to help the industries better understand the use of the code
values as well as to discuss issues that may arise regarding methods of
implementing the standards. Commission staff will therefore hold
technical conferences as needed during this process.
    89. UNICON argues that the Commission's testing site should be
permanent in the event the standards are revised. It also argues that
the testing site should fully simulate FERC's live eTariff environment.
It maintains that regulated companies could use this testing site to
verify that the XML packages being submitted are valid and can be
parsed by FERC's software and validate that the filing contents within
the XML packages will be processed appropriately.
    90. We are committed to providing as robust an electronic testing
site as we are able, within resource and budgetary constraints. When,
and if, the standards are revised we recognize that we may need to
provide some additional testing, and depending on budgetary constraints
we will try to maintain the electronic testing platform even after the
implementation date as companies may need to experiment with different
types of filings. Because much of the

processing of tariff filings received by the Commission will not be
automatic, but dependant on the human interaction with software on our
end, we cannot commit to providing companies with a complete review of
all test filings, including how these will be displayed on our web
viewer. Our staff is, and has been, committed to making this program a
success. As discussed above, staff will conduct, perhaps with NAESB,
conferences on implementation issues and staff will continue to provide
as much information on particular eTariff filing issues as their time
permits.
    91. EEI requests that the Commission post on its Web site all the
required information necessary to implement the eTariff approach and
place all information, including code values, into a single document.
As discussed earlier, we will provide on our web site all the
information needed to implement eTariff in as user friendly a means as
possible. Because the industries during the NAESB process requested it,
we have posted code values separately so that companies can download
that information more efficiently. These technical issues can be
discussed at the technical conferences, and we will continue to try to
post information in the manner that will be most useful to industry.
2. Baseline Tariff Filings
    92. Each regulated entity will be required to make a filing to
establish its baseline tariffs. In the NOPR, we proposed to reduce the
burden in making the baseline filing and limit such filings to tariffs
of general applicability. As applied to filings by electric utilities,
the baseline filing will include open access transmission tariffs
(OATTs), power sales tariffs available to any customer, and market-
based rate tariffs. Individually negotiated rate schedules and
agreements will not have to be included as part of the baseline filing.
Interstate natural gas pipelines will have to file their existing
Volume No. 1 tariffs, but will not have to file special rate schedules
included in Volume No. 2 tariffs, or any existing negotiated rate or
non-conforming service agreements. Intrastate and Hinshaw pipelines
will have to file their statement of operating conditions including
their interstate service rates. Oil pipelines will need to file their
tariff publications. Other pre-existing effective tariffs, rate
schedules, and agreements do not need to be included in the baseline
filing, although companies are free to include these agreements in
their baseline filings, and we would encourage them to do so.
    93. After implementation, all new tariffs and rates schedules would
have to be filed using the NAESB standards. Existing tariffs and rate
schedules not included as part of the baseline filing are required to
be filed electronically only when they are revised or amended.
    94. We recognize that some of the pre-existing tariffs and rates
schedules, such as older rate schedules and contracts, may not exist in
electronic form. Companies having or electing to file such agreements
do not need to retype the entire agreement. They may scan these
agreements into PDF or another image format and file them in that
fashion as an entire document.\57\ Although not required, companies are
encouraged to run an optical character recognition program (OCR) to
convert these scanned documents into a textual format so that the text
of the tariff can be searched and copied.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ As in the current practice, utilities filing scanned
documents can comply with the requirement to show only the effective
tariff provisions by making handwritten edits or cutting and pasting
provisions.
    \58\ We recognize that OCR may not work well on some older
documents. But even if the OCR version is not sufficiently legible
to be filed as the tariff text, a filer could include the OCR
version in the plain text field of the XML schema, so that it can be
used for search purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    95. The baseline tariff filing is not a substantive tariff
revision. The baseline filing, therefore, should reflect the existing
accepted tariff provisions, with no proposed substantive changes or
revisions. The baseline tariff filings will be subject to notice and
comment solely to permit customers to ensure that the proposed baseline
tariff is an accurate reflection of the effective tariff. No protests
involving other issues, such as the merits of various sections of the
tariff, will be considered. We also are providing a one-time delegation
of authority to the Director of OEMR to rule on protests.
    96. If a regulated entity has a pending or suspended tariff change
filing at the time of the filing of the baseline tariff, the regulated
entity should not file these pending or suspended tariff sections as
part of the baseline tariff filing. When the Commission acts on pending
or suspended tariffs provisions, the companies will file the tariff
provisions as a compliance filing through the eTariff portal for
inclusion in the database.
    97. As discussed above, in filing joint tariffs, utilities have the
option of designating one utility as the designated filer, as opposed
to each utility filing the identical tariff. For companies adopting the
designated filer option, the designated filer will file the baseline
tariff; the non-designated utility will need to include in its baseline
filing a tariff section that provides the appropriate name of the
tariff and identifies the utility that is the designated filer for the
joint tariff.
    98. EEI requests clarification whether a baseline filing or tariff
filings by electric utilities would be limited to OATTs. First Energy
requests that prior versions of the baseline tariffs will not need to
be filed. As stated above, electric utilities need to include as part
of their baseline tariff filings the following three types of
documents: OATTs, power sales tariffs available to any customer, and
market-based rate tariffs. Only the currently accepted versions of the
baseline tariffs need to be filed; historic copies should not be filed.
    99. EEI, Duke, and the CAISO request that companies be allowed to
include pending compliance filings (which have not yet been accepted)
in their baseline filings. They maintain that the tariff text in
compliance filings reflects Commission directives that the utilities
are implementing and that if compliance filings are not included in the
baseline filings, the baseline tariff as displayed by the Commission
could be inaccurate.
    100. Because eTariff is a database system with no existing records,
the baseline tariff needs to reflect the tariff as accepted by the
Commission. Any subsequent tariff changes, including previously filed
compliance filings, need to be filed separately so that the system can
appropriately record the status of such filings. To reduce the burden
on parties making baseline filings, we are limiting the baseline filing
obligation only to the accepted tariff provisions. Pending tariff
provisions in compliance filings will be added seriatim to the database
as the Commission acts on a company's compliance filings. This will
reduce the number of baseline filings companies are required to make.
    101. However, we will permit companies wishing to place pending
compliance filings into the database during the baseline filing process
to do so. But we emphasize that baseline filings of compliance
provisions are not required; this is only an option available to those
companies wishing to avail themselves of it. The details of including
compliance provisions as part of the baseline filing process can be
discussed with staff during the technical conferences.
3. Implementation Date for eTariff
    102. While we think the entire industry, both filers and customers
alike, will benefit from quick

implementation of eTariff, we recognize that we need to provide
sufficient time for software development and testing to ensure that the
filing of tariffs electronically has as few bugs as possible. In the
NOPR, we generally proposed that compliance would begin within six
months to one year after the Final Rule is issued.
    103. Many of the commenters thought that six months was too short
and requested implementation periods of one year or longer.\59\ INGAA
and AOPL urge the Commission not to set a firm implementation date, but
rather focus on successful implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ EEI, Duke, Nevada Power (proposes two years); ISO New
England and TransCanada (proposes at least one year); UNICON
(proposes 18 months); FirstEnergy (proposes 18-24 months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    104. In order to provide companies with sufficient time to develop
and test software, we will provide 18 months for implementation, until
April 1, 2010, with a staggered implementation schedule for companies
over the next six months. Staff and industry should work out the
schedule for staggered implementation during the technical conferences.

III. Information Collection Statement

    105. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
that OMB approve certain reporting, recordkeeping, and public
disclosure (information collections) imposed by an agency. Pursuant to
OMB regulations, the Commission is providing notice of its information
collections to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
    106. The Commission identifies the information provided under Part
35 as contained in FERC-516 ``Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff
Filings; Part 154 as contained in FERC-545 Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate
Change (Non-Formal); Part 284 as contained in FERC-549 Gas Pipeline
Rates: NGPA Title III Transactions and Parts 341 and 344 as contained
in FERC-550 ``Oil Pipeline Rates: Tariff Filings.'' The Commission
solicited comments on the need for this information, whether the
information will have practical utility, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use
of information technology. The Commission received specific comments
regarding its burden estimates.

A. Comments on the NOPR's Burden Estimates

    107. INGAA, EEI, TransCanada, and Southern California Edison
contend that the burden estimates used by the Commission in the NOPR
are understated. As part of the NAESB process, a consensus of all the
industries chose the flexibility provided by using the NAESB standards,
and the use of XML protocols for business communication, in place of
using filing software furnished by the Commission.\60\ The industries
recognized that adopting such standards would entail the building or
purchasing of software compatible with the XML protocols. By adopting
these standards, companies opted for the enhanced flexibility to obtain
software, or modify existing tariff maintenance software, in order to
better integrate tariff filings with their individual tariff
maintenance and business needs. The use of the NAESB standards, as
opposed to the Commission distributed software, also provides an open
framework for third-party software developers to develop filing and
tariff maintenance applications or processes, which, by managing
tariffs for multiple parties, will enable development costs to be
spread over a large number of users. The industry consensus was that
the flexibility offered by the standards outweighed the added costs of
developing or purchasing software to implement the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The President's Management Agenda (PMA) encourages the
development of protocols that enable digital communication using XML
protocols as the language of ebusiness. E-Government Strategy, at 8
(Executive Office of the President, April 2003) (minimization of
burden on business by * * * using XML or other open standards to
receive transmissions), http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/
2003egov_strat.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    108. But this flexibility, and the likelihood that third-party
providers will reduce the costs of constructing systems, makes
computing burden estimates difficult, particularly given the difficulty
in separating the costs of compliance from the other business functions
provided by various software systems. INGAA contends that the costs for
a tariff filing system should be in the range of $20,000 per tariff,
but TransCanada argues the costs for its system suggest a $10,000 cost
estimate.
    109. We developed the burden estimates in the NOPR based only on
the necessary costs of developing a bare-bones filing system that would
enable a company to make a filing in compliance with the standards.\61\
But we fully recognize that, while not strictly required by this Final
Rule, companies making larger numbers of tariff filings will want to
obtain a more robust software package that will provide various forms
of tariff management and storage in addition to simply facilitating a
tariff filing. Accordingly, we have determined to revise our burden
estimates to include the greater cost of obtaining more robust
software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The elements for such a system include a database program;
an Internet browser; an XML form generator, a Base64 converter; and
a ZIP file converter, many of which can be obtained for free or at
low cost. See http://www.download.com/Base64-De-Encoder/3000/2248_
4/10571789.html?tag=lst-1 (freeware Base 64 converter); http://
www.altova.com/products/databasespy/database_tool.html (XML form
generator); https://shopm.winzip.com/cgi-bin/wzct1.cgi (ZIP file
generator). We also included time and cost for hiring a computer
programmer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110. EEI maintains that companies will have multiple tariffs that
need to be filed as baseline tariffs. But in this Final Rule, at EEI's
request, we limited the baseline filing for electric companies to
OATTs, power sales tariffs available to any customer, and market-based
rate tariffs.
    111. EEI maintains we have underestimated the time for legal review
of certain data fields. We have included in these revised estimates
additional time for legal review of the baseline tariff filings. Since
the baseline filings consist only of already accepted tariff sheets,
such legal review should not be significant. For ongoing tariff
filings, this rulemaking does not entail additional legal review, since
attorneys generally already review the substantive tariff and
attachment data contained in such filings, and the metadata fields are
not substantive.
    112. EEI suggests that the estimates leave out one-time costs for
evaluating software, and training on new systems. We recognize that we
did overlook such costs, and we have added additional hours for
evaluation and training of relevant personnel.

B. Burden Estimates

    113. The following burden estimates reflect the cost to an
individual company of obtaining software sufficient to meet the
requirements of the regulation, as well as the cost of making the
required baseline filing. Investment in electronic filing will reduce
filing costs over time. Therefore, we include an estimate of the cost
savings per year due to the savings in mail, messenger delivery, and
copying. The public reporting and records retention burdens for the
reporting requirements and the records retention requirement are as
follows.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ These burden estimates apply only to this Final Rule and do
not reflect upon all of FERC-516, FERC-545, FERC-539 or FERC-550.

                                                                 Baseline Tariff--Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of       Hours per                     Installation    Total install
                     Data collection                        respondents       tariff        Total hours        hours           hours        Total hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-516:
    Utilities...........................................             152               9            1368              20            3040            4408
    Marketers...........................................             984               5            4920              20            9840           14760
RTOs/ISOs...............................................               6             362            2172              28             168            2340
FERC-545:
    Small Pipelines.....................................             106               7             742              20            2120            2862
    Large Pipelines.....................................              62              18            1116              20            1240            2356
    NGPA................................................             200               6            1200              20            4000            5200
FERC-550 Oil............................................             200               9            1800              20            4000            5800
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
    Totals..............................................  ..............  ..............           13318  ..............           24408           37726
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collections: 37,726.

                                             Baseline Tariff--Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Software       Total cost
         Data collection             Number of       Cost per      Total filing     purchase &      purchase &
                                    respondents       tariff           cost        installation    installation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-516:
    Utilities...................             152            $211         $32,072         $10,000      $1,520,000
    Marketers \63\..............             984             109         107,256           1,035       1,018,440
RTOs/ISOs.......................               6           8,345          50,070          10,000          60,000
FERC-545:
    Small Pipelines.............             106             171          18,126           2,070         219,420
    Large Pipelines.............              62             423          26,226          10,000         620,000
    NGPA........................             200             132          26,400           2,070         414,000
FERC-550 Oil....................             200             206          41,200          10,000       2,000,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................  ..............  ..............         301,350  ..............       5,851,860
                                 ===============================================================================
    Combined Total..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       6,153,210
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Going Forward Cost Savings Per Annum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Total number of
                                                                 filings       Cost per filing     Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil.......................................................               689              $110           $75,790
Electric..................................................             4,445               406         1,804,670
Gas.......................................................             2,548               406         1,034,488
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
    Total.................................................  ................  ................         2,914,948
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    114. OMB's regulations require it to approve certain information
collection requirements imposed by an agency rule. The Commission is
submitting notification of this Final Rule to OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ The costs for marketers assume that affiliated marketers
will share a single installation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: FERC-516, Electric Rate Schedules and Tariff Filings; FERC-
545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non Formal); FERC-549 Gas
Pipeline Rates: NGPA Title III Transactions; and FERC-550 Oil Pipeline
Rates: Tariff Filings.
    Action: Proposed Collections.
    OMB Control Nos. 1902-0096, 1902-0154, 1902-0086 and 1902-0089.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit; Federal Government.
    Frequency of responses: On occasion.
    115. Necessity of the Information: The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission is amending its regulations to require that all tariffs and
tariff revisions and rate change applications for the public utility,
natural gas pipeline, and oil pipeline industries be filed with the
Commission in lieu of paper. Electronically filed paper tariffs and
rate case filings should improve the efficiency of the administrative
process for tariff and rate case filings, by providing time and
resource savings for all stakeholders. Specifically, electronic filing
reduces physical storage space needs and document processing time,
provides for easier tracking of document filing activity; potentially
reduces mailing and courier fees; allows concurrent access to the
tariff filing by multiple parties as well as the ability to download
and print tariff filings; and provides automatic e-mail notification to
an applicant of receipt of the filing and whether or not it has been
accepted. The Commission's staff will be able to retrieve and analyze
information contained in these filings more readily than under the
current system; mandated electronic filing of these documents should
facilitate the staff's retrieval and review of a particular document.
These capabilities will be extremely beneficial as many tariff filings
involve statutory processing deadlines.

    116. The Final Rule will assist the Commission' efforts to comply
with the Paperwork Reduction Act,\64\ the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act (GPEA) \65\ and E-Government Act of 2002 \66\ by
developing the capability to file electronically with the Commission
via the Internet with uniform formats using software that is readily
available and easy to use. Expanding Electronic Government is one of
the five key elements of the President's Management Agenda (PMA). The
PMA proposed 24 ``E-Government'' initiatives including Government to
Business (G2B). The goals of the G2B portfolio are to reduce burdens on
business, provide one-stop access to information and enable digital
communication using the language of e-business (XML). G2B also directs
agencies to take advantage of commercial electronic transaction
protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163, (Oct. 1, 1995).
    \65\ Title XVII, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (Oct. 21,
1998).
    \66\ Pub. L. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 (Dec. 17, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    117. The standards being adopted here were developed in conjunction
with NAESB, an ANSI accredited standards developer, and employs XML
protocols, as suggested in G2B. The deployment of more effective
technology will help to streamline the many reporting requirements as
well as facilitate a more efficient means for businesses to interact
with the government.
    118. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, [Attention:
Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, Phone: (202) 502-
8415, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
send comments concerning the collections of information and the
associated burden estimate(s) to the contact listed above and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk
Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone (202) 395-
7345, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Due to security concerns, comments should be
sent electronically to the following e-mail address: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference the docket number of this
rulemaking in your submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    119. 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.\67\ The
Commission concludes that neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement is required for this Final Rule under
Section 380.4(a) of the Commission's regulations. Section 380.4(a)(15)
provides for a categorical exemption for approval of actions taken
under Sections 205 and 206 of the FPA relating to the filing of
schedules containing all rates and charges for the transmission or sale
subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, plus the classification,
practices, contracts and regulations that affect rates charges,
classifications and services. Section 380.4(a), (25) provides a
categorical exemption for review of natural gas filings. Section
38.4(26) provides an exclusion for review of oil pipeline filings. In
addition, section 380.4(a) provides an exemption for rules that are
clarifying corrective, or procedural and that provide for information
gathering, analysis, and dissemination. Because this Final Rule only
involves these matters, no environmental consideration is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47,897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    120. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \68\ generally
requires a description and analysis of whether the Final Rule will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
or a certification that the Final Rule will not have a significant
economic impact on such entities. In the NOPR, we stated that the
proposed rule would be applicable to all entities regulated by the
Commission, a small number of which may be small entities. However, the
Commission did not believe the rule would have a significant impact on
these small businesses because the software necessary to create the XML
software is commercially available from several Internet Web sites as
shareware or subject to low-cost licensing options. From the Commission
staff's own experience, relatively inexpensive XML software can be
obtained that can adequately provide the basic tariff filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    121. This Final Rule applies to public utilities that own, control
or operate interstate transmission facilities, natural gas companies
and oil pipeline companies, the majority of which are not small
businesses.\69\ The Commission has identified that less than 2% of
these entities qualify as small entities. Moreover, by eliminating the
requirement to file numerous paper copies of tariffs and documents
associated with rate filings, these regulations are designed to reduce
the filing burden on all companies, including small businesses.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that these regulations will not
impose a significant economic impact on small businesses and no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required pursuant to Sec.  605(b) of
the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing Section 3 of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 623. Section 3 of the SBA defines a ``small business
concern'' as a business which is independently owned and operated
and which is not dominant in its field of operation. The Small
Business Size Standards component of the North American Industry
Classification System defines a small utility as a company including
its affiliates that is primarily engaged in the generation,
transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and
whose total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not
exceed 4 million megawatt hours. A small natural gas company is
defined as a company that transports natural gas and whose annual
receipts (total income plus cost of good sold) did not exceed $6.5
million for the previous year. A small oil pipeline company is
defined a company with 1,500 or less employees for the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    122. 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.
    123. 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.
    124. 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 e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    125. These regulations are effective November 3, 2008. 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

18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Electricity, Incorporation by reference.

18 CFR Part 131

    Electric power.

18 CFR Part 154

    Natural gas, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Natural gas companies, Rate schedules and tariffs.

18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 250

    Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 281

    Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 284

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

18 CFR Part 300

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power rates,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Electricity.

18 CFR Part 341

    Maritime carriers, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

18 CFR Part 344

    Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 346

    Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 347

    Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 348

    Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 375

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Seals and insignia,
Sunshine Act, Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Penalties,
Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Parts 35, 131,
154, 157, 250, 281, 284, 300, 341, 344, 346, 347, 348, 375 and 385,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Section 35.1 is amended as follows:
0
a. The section heading is revised;
0
b. In paragraph (a), the first sentence is revised;
0
c. In paragraph (a), the phrase ``or tariff'' is added after the phrase
``rate schedule'';
0
d. In paragraphs (b) and (c), remove all references to ``supplement'';
0
e. In paragraphs (b) and (c), the phrase ``or tariff'' is removed and
the phrase ``, tariff, or service agreement'' is added in its place;
0
f. In paragraph (c), the phrase ``Notices of Cancellation or
Termination'' is removed, and the phrase ``cancellation or
termination'' is added in its place;
0
g. In paragraph (d), the phrase ``, tariffs or service agreements'' is
added after the phrase ``rate schedules'';
0
h. In paragraph (g), the phrase ``service'' is added before the phrase
``agreement''. The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  35.1  Application; obligation to file rate schedules, tariffs and
certain service agreements.

    (a) Every public utility shall file with the Commission and post,
in conformity with the requirements of this part, full and complete
rate schedules and tariffs and those service agreements not meeting the
requirements of Sec.  35.1(g), clearly and specifically setting forth
all rates and charges for any transmission or sale of electric energy
subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission, the classifications,
practices, rules and regulations affecting such rates, charges,
classifications, services, rules, regulations or practices, as required
by section 205(c) of the Federal Power Act (49 Stat. 851; 16 U.S.C.
824d(c)). * * *
* * * * *

0
3. Section 35.2 is amended as follows:
0
a. Paragraph (b) is revised;
0
b. Paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) are redesignated as paragraphs (d),
(e), and (f) respectively;
0
c. In redesignated paragraphs (d) and (f), the phrase ``rate schedule''
is removed and the phrase ``rate schedule, tariff or service
agreement'' is added in its place;
0
d. Paragraph (c) is added; and
0
e. Newly redesignated paragraph (e) is revised.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  35.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) Rate schedule. The term rate schedule as used herein shall mean
a statement of (1) electric service as defined in paragraph (a) of this
section, (2) rates and charges for or in connection with that service,
and (3) all classifications, practices, rules, or regulations which in
any manner affect or relate to the aforementioned service, rates, and
charges. This statement shall be in writing and may take the physical
form of a contract, purchase or sale or other agreement, lease of
facilities, or other writing. Any oral agreement or understanding
forming a part of such statement shall be reduced to writing and made a
part thereof. A rate schedule is designated with a Rate Schedule
number.
    (c)(1) Tariff. The term tariff as used herein shall mean a
statement of (1) electric service as defined in paragraph (a) of this