[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17087-17100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8518]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 1b, 343, and 385

[Docket No. RM98-13-000; Order No. 602]


Complaint Procedures

Issued March 31, 1999.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
revising its regulations governing complaints filed with the Commission 
under the Federal Power Act, the Natural Gas Act, the Natural Gas 
Policy Act, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, the 
Interstate Commerce Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The 
Final Rule is designed to encourage and support consensual resolution 
of complaints, and to organize the complaint procedures so that all 
complaints are handled in a timely and fair manner.
    In order to organize the complaint procedures so that all 
complaints are handled in a timely and fair manner, the Commission is 
revising Rule 206 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure. Among other 
things, the Commission is requiring that complaints meet certain 
informational requirements, requiring answers to be filed in a shorter, 
20-day time frame, and providing various paths for resolution of 
complaints, including Fast Track processing for complaints that are 
highly time sensitive. The Commission is also adding a new Rule 218 
providing for simplified procedures for complaints where the amount in 
controversy is less than $100,000 and the impact on other entities is 
de minimis.
    The Commission is codifying its current Enforcement Hotline 
procedures in Part 1b, Rules Relating to Investigations and revising 
its alternative dispute resolution regulations (Rules 604, 605 and 606) 
to conform to the changes made by the Administrative Dispute Resolution 
Act of 1996. Finally, the Commission is revising certain sections of 
Part 343, Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, to 
conform to the changes in the Commission's complaint procedures in Part 
385 of the regulations.

DATES: The regulations are effective May 10, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Faerberg, Office of the General 
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208-1275.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of 
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all 
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of 
this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room 
at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A, Washington, D.C. 20426.
    The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) provides access to 
the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission. CIPS can be 
accessed via Internet through FERC's Homepage (http://www.ferc.fed.us) 
using the CIPS Link or the Energy Information Online icon. The full 
text of this document will be available on CIPS in ASCII and 
WordPerfect 6.1 format. CIPS is also available through the Commission's 
electronic bulletin board service at no charge to the user and may be 
accessed using a personal computer with a modem by dialing 202-208-
1397, if dialing locally, or 1-800-856-3920, if dialing long distance. 
To access CIPS, set your communications software to 19200, 14400, 
12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8 
data bits and 1 stop bit. User assistance is available at 202-208-2474 
or by E-mail to [email protected].
    This document is also available through the Commission's Records 
and Information Management System (RIMS), an electronic storage and 
retrieval system of documents submitted to and issued by the Commission 
after November 16, 1981. Documents from November 1995 to the present 
can be viewed and printed. RIMS is available in the Public Reference 
Room or remotely via Internet through FERC's Homepage using the RIMS 
link or the Energy Information Online icon. User assistance is 
available at 202-208-2222, or by E-mail to [email protected].
    Finally, the complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, RVJ International, 
Inc. RVJ

[[Page 17088]]

International, Inc. is located in the Public Reference Room at 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    The Commission has concluded, 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, 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).
Before Commissioners: James J. Hoecker, Chairman; Vicky A. Bailey, 
William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Curt Hebert, Jr.

I. Introduction

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is revising 
its regulations governing complaints filed with the Commission under 
the Federal Power Act, the Natural Gas Act, the Natural Gas Policy Act, 
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, the Interstate 
Commerce Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.1 
The Final Rule is designed to encourage and support consensual 
resolution of complaints, and to organize the complaint procedures so 
that all complaints are handled in a timely and fair manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission 
inadvertently omitted a reference to the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act (OCSLA) as one of the statutes under which complaints may 
be filed, and, therefore, affected by the proposed regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to organize the complaint procedures so that all 
complaints are handled in a timely and fair manner, the Commission is 
revising Rule 206 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.2 
Among other things, the Commission is requiring that complaints meet 
certain informational requirements, requiring answers to be filed in a 
shorter, 20-day time frame, and providing various paths for resolution 
of complaints, including Fast Track processing for complaints that are 
highly time sensitive. These changes should ensure that the Commission 
and all parties to a dispute have as much information as early in the 
complaint process as possible to evaluate their respective positions. 
The changes should also ensure that the process used to resolve a 
complaint is suited for the facts and circumstances surrounding the 
complaint, the harm alleged, the potential impact on competition, and 
the amount of expedition needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.206 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is adding a new Rule 218 providing for simplified 
procedures for complaints where the amount in controversy is less than 
$100,000 and the impact on other entities is de minimis.
    The Commission is also taking a number of steps to support its 
policy of promoting consensual resolution of disputes among parties in 
the first instance. The recently created Dispute Resolution Service 
will work with all those interested in Commission activities to 
increase awareness and use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in 
all areas the Commission regulates. This new service will also help 
identify cases appropriate for ADR processes and conduct ADR processes, 
including convening sessions. In this Final Rule, the Commission is 
codifying its current Enforcement Hotline procedures in Part 1b, Rules 
Relating to Investigations.3 This change will further 
publicize and establish the Hotline as a viable alternative to the 
filing of a formal complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR Part 1b (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is also revising its alternative dispute resolution 
regulations (Rules 604, 605 and 606) 4 to conform to the 
changes made by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 
1996.5 The ADRA of 1996 provides that the confidentiality 
provisions of the Act pre-empt the disclosure requirements of the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The ADRA of 1996 also eliminated 
provisions which allowed an agency to terminate the arbitration 
proceeding at any point prior to the issuance of an award, and to 
vacate or opt-out of an arbitration award within 30 days after the 
service of the award. By bringing existing Rules 604, 605, and 606 into 
compliance with the confidentiality, termination and opt-out provisions 
of the 1996 ADRA, the Commission will further foster an environment 
that promotes consensual resolution of disputes by eliminating 
provisions in its regulations which were seen as having a chilling 
effect on the use of ADR.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.604-606 (1998).
    \5\ Pub. L. 104-320, 110 Stat. 3870 (October 19, 1996).
    \6\ June 23, 1998 Comments of the American Arbitration 
Association in Docket No. PL98-4-000 at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is also revising certain sections of Part 343, 
Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings,7 to 
conform to the changes in the Commission's complaint procedures in Part 
385 of the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 18 CFR Part 343 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    The Commission first received requests to change its complaint 
procedures in filings arising out of a proceeding concerning interstate 
natural gas pipelines. The Pipeline Customer Coalition 8 
filed a proposal for expedited procedures for the consideration and 
resolution of complaints filed with respect to natural gas pipeline 
rates, services, or practices.9 The Interstate Natural Gas 
Association Of America (INGAA) filed its own proposal and comments in 
opposition to the Coalition's proposal.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Pipeline Customer Coalition consists of the American 
Iron and Steel Institute, the LDC Caucus of the American Gas 
Association, American Public Gas Association, Associated Gas 
Distributors, Georgia Industrial Group, Independent Petroleum 
Association of America, Natural Gas Supply Association, Process Gas 
Consumers, and United Distribution Companies.
    \9\ Comments and Petition of the Pipeline Customer Coalition, 
and Amended Petition of the Pipeline Customer Coalition for Proposed 
Rulemaking filed on May 31, 1996, and April 3, 1997, respectively, 
in Regulation of Negotiated Transportation Services of Natural Gas 
Pipelines, et al., Docket Nos. RM96-7-000 and RM96-12-000.
    \10\ Comments and Petition of the Interstate Natural Gas 
Association of America filed on April 10, 1997, in Regulation of 
Negotiated Transportation Services of Natural Gas Pipelines, et al., 
Docket Nos. RM96-7-000, RM96-12-000, and RM97-4-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 30, 1998, in Docket No. PL98-4-000, the Commission held a 
symposium on the Commission's complaint procedures to determine (1) how 
well the Commission's current complaint procedures are working, (2) 
whether changes to the current complaint procedures are appropriate, 
and (3) what type of changes should be made.11 Whereas the 
Coalition's and INGAA's proposals were restricted to complaints against 
pipelines, the purpose of the symposium was to discuss the Commission's 
complaint procedures on a generic basis. The Commission obtained a 
cross section of views from all segments of the gas, electric, and oil 
pipeline industries, as well as state regulatory agencies and members 
of the energy bar. The Commission received a number of comments 
following the symposium representing a broad range of interests from 
the natural gas pipeline, electric, and oil pipeline industries. As a 
result of a commitment made by representatives of various segments of 
the electric industry at the March 30, 1998 symposium, the Electric 
Industry Dispute Resolution Working Group (Electric Working Group) 
12 filed

[[Page 17089]]

recommendations and proposed procedures for dispute 
resolution.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Symposium on Process and Reform: Commission Complaint 
Procedures, Docket No. PL98-4-000.
    \12\ The Electric Working Group includes representatives from 
American Public Power Association, Coalition for a Competitive 
Electric Market, Edison Electric Institute, Electric Power Supply 
Association, Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, National Rural 
Electric Cooperative Association and Transmission Access Policy 
Study Group, working with the assistance and support of the American 
Arbitration Association.
    \13\ Electric Industry Dispute Resolution Working Group 
Recommendations and Proposed Procedures for Dispute Resolution filed 
on June 23, 1998, in Symposium on Process and Reform: Commission 
Complaint Procedures, Docket No. PL98-4-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 29, 1998, the Commission issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NOPR) in Docket No. RM98-13-000.14 The 
Commission received 57 comments on the NOPR representing all segments 
of the gas, electric, and oil pipeline industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 63 FR 41982 (Aug. 6, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The natural gas and electric industries have undergone and will 
continue to undergo significant transformations as a result of changes 
to the Commission's regulatory policies. These industries are now 
operating in an environment which is increasingly driven by competitive 
market forces. Because of the short-term transactional nature of the 
electric and gas markets, and the fact that competitive changes happen 
quickly, timely and effective resolution of complaints has become more 
crucial. If the Commission is to use lighter-handed forms of 
regulation, it must have a complaint process that ensures that 
complainants will receive adequate protection and redress under the 
statutes administered and enforced by the Commission. Complaints enable 
the Commission to monitor activities in the marketplace and provide an 
early warning system for identifying potential problems. This Final 
Rule is necessary to provide assurance to the public that complaints 
will receive appropriate consideration and that complaints that require 
expedited consideration will receive it.
    The revised regulations will encourage and support the resolution 
of disputes by the parties themselves prior to the filing of a formal 
complaint. If potential complaints can be resolved or the number of 
issues in a potential complaint can be reduced informally, the 
Commission then can focus its attention on the significant remaining 
issues raised in the formal complaints ultimately filed with the 
Commission.
    The revised regulations organize the complaint procedures so that 
all complaints are handled in a timely, fair manner based upon an 
appropriate record. The regulations will assure that those complaints 
deserving of expedition receive it by recognizing that the appropriate 
process to be used for a particular complaint depends on many factors 
including the harm alleged and the facts and circumstances surrounding 
the complaint.
    The proceedings conducted over the past 12 months and the comments 
received in response to the Commission's NOPR have all served to 
emphasize the need to have in place procedures that will enable 
resolution without delay of disputes that will arise in the context of 
the rapidly moving competitive circumstances of today's federally 
regulated energy industries. This Final Rule must be viewed against a 
background of a more complex energy market where regulated companies 
are driven increasingly by competitive market forces. The dynamics of 
competitive markets and lighter-handed Commission regulation can be 
expected to change the nature of the complaints received. The 
Commission will be faced both with novel commercial problems and with 
requests for ``real time'' relief. These rules will allow the 
Commission to respond to the greater demands that will be placed upon 
it to expeditiously resolve disputes.

A. Informational Requirements for Complaints

    The final rule revises Rule 206, set forth in section 385.206 of 
the Commission's regulations, to require that a complaint must satisfy 
certain informational requirements. A complaint must: (1) Clearly 
identify the action or inaction which is alleged to violate applicable 
statutory standards; (2) explain how the action or inaction violates 
applicable statutory standards; (3) set forth the business, commercial, 
economic or other issues presented by the action or inaction as such 
relate to or affect the complainant; (4) make a good faith effort to 
quantify the financial impact or burden (if any) created for the 
complainant as a result of the action or inaction; (5) indicate the 
practical, operational, or nonfinancial impacts imposed as a result of 
the action or inaction, including, where applicable, the environmental, 
safety or reliability impacts of the action or inaction; (6) state 
whether the issues presented are pending in an existing Commission 
proceeding or a proceeding in any other forum in which the complainant 
is a party, and if so, provide an explanation why timely resolution 
cannot be achieved in that forum; (7) state the specific relief or 
remedy requested, including any request for stay, extension of time, or 
other preliminary relief, and in cases seeking other preliminary 
relief, a detailed explanation of why such relief is required 
addressing: (i) the likelihood of success on the merits; (ii) the 
nature and extent of the harm if preliminary relief is denied; (iii) 
the balance of the relevant interests, i.e., the hardship to nonmovant 
if preliminary relief is granted contrasted with the hardship to the 
movant if preliminary relief is denied; and (iv) the effect, if any, of 
the decision on preliminary relief on the public interest; (8) include 
all documents that support the facts in the complaint in possession of, 
or otherwise attainable by, the complainant, including, but not limited 
to, contracts, affidavits, and testimony; (9) state (i) whether the 
Enforcement Hotline, Dispute Resolution Service, tariff-based dispute 
resolution mechanisms, or other informal procedures were used; (ii) 
whether the complainant believes that alternative dispute resolution 
under the Commission's supervision could successfully resolve the 
complaint; (iii) what types of ADR procedures could be used; and (iv) 
any process that has been agreed on for resolving the complaint; (10) 
include a form of notice suitable for publication in the Federal 
Register and submit a copy of the notice on a separate 3\1/2\ inch 
diskette in ASCII format; and (11) explain with respect to requests for 
Fast Track processing pursuant to section 385.206(h), why the standard 
processes will not be adequate for expeditiously resolving the 
complaint.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Fast Track process is describe in section H below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is adopting, as the final rule, the proposal in the 
NOPR with certain modifications. The NOPR had proposed to require 
complaints to include all documents that support the facts in the 
complaint. A number of commenters (Dynegy, American Public Power 
Association, Transmission Dependent Utility Systems) were concerned 
that they would not be able to meet the requirement to include all 
documents that support the facts in the complaint because, they 
asserted, in many instances relevant documents will be in the hands of 
the respondent. Section 385.206(b)(8) adopted in the final rule is 
modified from that proposed to request ``all documents that support the 
facts in the complaint in possession of, or otherwise attainable by, 
the complainant, including, but not limited to, contracts, affidavits, 
and testimony.'' This should alleviate commenters' concerns.
    The NOPR proposed to require complainants to quantify the financial 
impact or burden (if any) created for the complainant as a result of 
the action or inaction of the respondent. A number of commenters (Enron 
Capital and Trade, American Public Power Association, Missouri Public 
Service Commission) were concerned that they would not be able to meet 
the requirement to quantify

[[Page 17090]]

the financial impact or burden (if any) created for the complainant as 
a result of the action or inaction. Section 385.206(b)(4) adopted in 
the final rule is modified from that proposed to require a complainant 
to ``make a good faith effort to quantify the financial impact or 
burden (if any) created for the complainant as a result of the action 
or inaction.''
    The Pipeline Customer Coalition was concerned about having to 
reveal commercially sensitive information for the purposes of 
supporting a complaint. To protect such information, the Pipeline 
Customer Coalition proposed that (a) the complaint specifically 
indicate the absence of certain information that the complainant 
regards as commercially sensitive and (b) the complaint include a 
proposed protective order that could be adopted by the Commission to 
facilitate the disclosure of confidential factual data to the 
respondent and other parties to the complaint proceeding.
    The Commission adopts here a procedure akin to that for oil 
pipelines filing applications for market power determinations where 
interested persons must execute an applicant-proposed protective 
agreement to receive the complete application. A complainant would file 
its complete complaint with a request for privileged treatment. The 
respondent and other parties would receive a redacted version of the 
complaint along with a complainant-proposed protective agreement. The 
respondent and parties would receive the privileged version of the 
complaint by executing the protective agreement and returning it to the 
complainant. Such a procedure has the advantage of enabling parties to 
resolve disclosure disputes through consensual agreement among 
themselves without the need for Commission involvement in every 
instance involving privileged information. The Commission could still 
step in if parties were unable to agree on protective conditions or 
expressed a need for the added assurance against disclosure that would 
be offered by a Commission-issued protective order. If necessary, the 
Commission could develop a model protective agreement akin to the model 
protective order developed recently by the Office of Administrative Law 
Judges.
    Therefore, in section 385.206 adopted in the final rule, a new 
section (e) is added describing the privileged treatment procedures. A 
complainant may request privileged treatment of documents and 
information contained in the complaint pursuant to section 388.112 of 
the Commission's regulations.16 In the event privileged 
treatment is requested, the complainant must file the original and 
three copies of its complaint with the information for which privileged 
treatment is sought and 11 copies of the pleading without the 
information for which privileged treatment is sought. The original and 
three copies must be clearly identified as containing information for 
which privileged treatment is sought. A complainant must provide a copy 
of its complaint without the privileged information and its proposed 
form of protective agreement to each entity that is to be served 
pursuant to section 385.206(c). An interested person must make a 
written request to the complainant for a copy of the complete complaint 
within 5 days after the filing of the complaint. The request must 
include an executed copy of the protective agreement. A complainant 
must provide a copy of the complete complaint to the requesting person 
within 5 days after receipt of the written request and an executed copy 
of the protective agreement. Any party can object to the proposed form 
of protective agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 18 CFR 388.112 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the 10 days that are provided to exchange information 
when the privileged treatment provisions are invoked, the Commission is 
providing in section 385.206(f) of the final rule that answers, 
interventions and comments are due 30 days after the complaint is filed 
when the privileged provisions are used. This will ensure that 
respondents will have the normal 20 days to file an answer once they 
have received the complete complaint.17 In addition, section 
385.206(f) provides that in the event there is an objection to the 
protective agreement, the Commission will establish the time when 
answers, interventions, and comments will be due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Section E below for a discussion of the time period for 
answers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Language used in the NOPR in proposed sections 385.206(b)(1) and 
(2) would have required a complainant to identify and explain ``why the 
action or inaction is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or 
preferential, or otherwise unlawful, or is contrary to a condition in a 
certificate or license, a tariff provision, or the terms of an 
exemption.'' This language, however, may not describe all the statutory 
standards that could apply in a complaint situation. The Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act provides, for example, that pipelines must 
transport ``without discrimination'' and must provide ``open and 
nondiscriminatory access.'' Accordingly, the informational requirements 
adopted in section 385.206(b)(1) and (2) of the final rule are modified 
from those proposed to require that complainants ``identify the action 
or inaction which is alleged to violate applicable statutory standards 
or regulatory requirements,'' and explain ``why the action or inaction 
violates applicable statutory standards or regulatory requirements.'' 
This will avoid any confusion that might have resulted from the 
language in the NOPR being construed in a way as to limit when 
complaints could be filed.
    A number of commenters (Piedmont Natural Gas, Florida Cities, Joint 
Consumer Advocates) requested that a final rule provide complainants 
with discovery rights. The Commission will not include discovery rights 
as part of the final rule. However, the Commission recognizes that 
there will be instances in which information necessary to support a 
complainant's allegation is not readily available because it is in the 
hands of the respondent. In these cases, a complainant should file all 
the information that it has. It should also identify as support for a 
request for discovery the further information that it needs that is in 
the hands of the respondent. The Commission will address these 
situations on a case by case basis.
    Should there be factual issues that require record development 
through hearing before an ALJ, discovery would be available as an 
element of the usual hearing process. A complainant that suggests a 
hearing as its procedural path could also include discovery requests 
with its complaint. If a hearing is established, the ALJ would control 
discovery.

B. Informal Resolution

    The Commission strongly encourages parties to attempt informal 
resolution of their disputes prior to the filing of a formal complaint. 
The Commission therefore proposed in the NOPR that parties be required 
to explain whether alternative dispute resolution was tried and, if 
not, why. After considering the comments the Commission adopts the 
proposal in the NOPR.
    In addition to such existing informal dispute resolution mechanisms 
as those in tariff provisions and the Commission's Enforcement Hotline, 
the Commission currently is developing an expanded alternative dispute 
resolution capability as part of its internal restructuring. Having 
these capabilities available should facilitate the informal resolution 
of many disputes and save parties the time and expense associated

[[Page 17091]]

with the filing and resolution of a formal complaint. Parties to a 
dispute therefore should have sufficient means and incentive to resolve 
their disputes informally. A potential complainant, however, should be 
given the broadest possible options in how it wishes to proceed with a 
complaint. The Commission, therefore, will not mandate the use of 
informal procedures prior to filing a formal complaint as requested by 
certain parties (Williams, Koch, INGAA, Mobil Pipe Line, El Paso 
Energy, the Utility Coalition, Energy, and NYSE).
    The Commission also requested comments on what type of professional 
assistance the Commission might provide to facilitate informal dispute 
resolution. Wisconsin Distributor Group stated that the Commission 
should publish on a regular basis industry specific status reports on 
complaints. Enron Capital and Trade stated that the Commission should 
have a publication or web site, to provide information about a party's 
options in filing a complaint and how the process could work, or a 
procedural hotline. Indicated Shippers stated that complaints should be 
posted on a web site because the Commission's Records and Information 
Management System (RIMS) is difficult to access and can be blurred. 
American Public Power Association stated that the Commission should 
establish a division of dispute resolution. Transmission Dependent 
Utility Systems stated that the Commission should have prefiling 
conferences for complaints in which Staff meets informally with parties 
and renders non-binding advice. EPSA stated informal procedures will be 
most effective if staff plays an active role. USDA-Rural Utilities 
Service stated that the Commission should post on its website the names 
of a case officer for each docket who is available to answer questions. 
In their reply comments, Pipeline Customer Coalition and Indicated 
Shippers supported the idea of the publication of a complaint status 
report.
    Many of these ideas will prove valuable as the Commission moves 
towards greater reliance on the electronic exchange of information. The 
Commission is currently engaging in an internal review of its 
information technology capabilities and is examining the issue of 
public access to information and electronic filing in Docket No. PL98-
1-000. 18 Although the Commission will put certain basic 
information about a party's options in filing a complaint on the FERC 
Homepage, the idea of a complaint status report, as well as other 
electronic access issues relating to complaints, will be considered as 
part of the broader review of information technology capabilities. In 
addition, the Commission's new Dispute Resolution Service will be a 
resource that can be used to aid in the informal resolution of disputes 
before, or after, a complaint is filed. Further, the Enforcement 
Hotline will continue to be available to resolve informal complaints 
prior to a formal filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Public Access to Information and Electronic Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Simultaneous Service

    Section 385.206(c) adopted in the final rule is modified from that 
proposed to read:

    Any person filing a complaint must serve a copy of the complaint 
on the respondent, affected regulatory agencies, and others the 
complainant reasonably knows may be expected to be affected by the 
complaint. Service must be simultaneous with filing at the 
Commission for respondents and affected entities in the same 
metropolitan area as the complainant. Simultaneous or overnight 
service is acceptable for respondents and affected entities outside 
the complainant's metropolitan area. Simultaneous service can be 
accomplished through electronic mail, fax, express delivery, or 
messenger.

    The NOPR proposed to require a complainant to serve a copy of the 
complaint on the respondent and all others who the complainant knows 
will be affected simultaneously with filing at the Commission. Certain 
commenters (Pipeline Customer Coalition, Williams Companies, Enron 
Capital, Dynegy, NRECA, ProLiance, Chevron Products Co.) were concerned 
that service on all parties who the complainant knows will be affected 
is speculative. Certain commenters (CPUC, USDA-Rural Utilities Service) 
also requested that simultaneous service include affected regulatory 
agencies. Finally, INGAA requested that service should be overnight for 
out of town residents and the same day for in town residents. These 
concerns and requests are reasonable and their substance is 
incorporated in the final rule in section 385.206(c).
    INGAA requested that the Commission should explore the possibility 
of electronic service. Transmission Dependent Utility Systems asserted 
that serving all affected customers may be burdensome and that 
complainants should instead provide a detailed electronic notice. 
Missouri PSC asserted that the respondent should post the complaint on 
an EBB or the internet.
    As discussed above, electronic filing issues, including electronic 
service, are being examined in Docket No. PL98-1-000 and thus should be 
addressed in that proceeding. In addition, issues concerning electronic 
access to information are being explored as part of the Commission's 
internal review of its information technology capabilities.

D. Notice of the Complaint

    The NOPR proposed that the Commission issue a notice of complaint 
within two days. Certain commenters (Pipeline Customer Coalition, AOPL, 
Cenex Pipeline) requested that this be codified in the regulations. The 
Commission will not include such a requirement in the regulations.
    The date of issuance of the notice of a complaint is not crucial to 
a speedy resolution of a complaint proceeding because the time for 
filing answers, comments, and interventions is calculated based on the 
date the complaint is filed rather than the date of the notice. 
Nevertheless, the Commission intends to issue all notices promptly and 
expects to be able to issue most notices within two days.
    A number of commenters (Enron Pipeline, Koch Gateway, El Paso 
Energy, Equilon Pipeline, Williams, INGAA, Duke Energy, Consumers 
Energy, Oil Pipeline Shipper Group, and Express Pipeline Partnership) 
suggested that complaints be screened for deficiencies and, if 
necessary, dismissed prior to a notice being issued. Pipeline Customer 
Coalition opposes screening, stating that respondents should be 
required to identify any complaint deficiencies in their answers.
    The Commission agrees with the Pipeline Customer Coalition that any 
deficiencies in a complaint should be pointed out in the answer and the 
Commission can make a decision based on all the pleadings. Further, in 
the Commission's experience it is unlikely that a complaint would be so 
patently deficient as to require a summary dismissal on procedural 
grounds. The Commission therefore will not adopt screening for 
deficiencies as part of the final rule.

E. Time Period for Answers, Comments, Interventions

    Section 385.206(f) adopted in the final rule is modified from that 
proposed to require that answers, interventions, and comments to a 
complaint must be filed within 20 days after the complaint is filed, 
or, in cases where the complainant requests privileged treatment for 
information in its complaint, 30 days after the complaint is filed. The 
NOPR proposed to require answers, interventions and comments to 
complaints to be filed within 10 days

[[Page 17092]]

after the complaint is filed. Almost all the comments maintained that 
the proposed 10 day period for answers, comments, and interventions is 
too short. Parties suggested various alternatives which ranged from 10 
business days to the current 30 day answer period. In the Commission's 
view a shorter response period, such as 20 days, is preferable to the 
current 30 day answer period. Twenty days should provide respondents 
with a sufficient amount of time to answer a complaint while being 
consistent with the goal of speeding up the complaint resolution 
process.
    Certain commenters requested that the final rule provide for 
replies as requested. The Commission's regulations do not provide for 
replies to answers, and allowing replies in all instances would 
unnecessarily lengthen the complaint process.

F. Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations

    The final rule revises certain sections of Part 343, Procedural 
Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline proceedings, to conform with the 
changes to the Commission's complaint procedures.
    A number of oil pipelines maintained that no change is needed for 
oil pipelines and the Commission should retain the current oil pipeline 
regulations concerning complaints. Section 343.2(c) of the oil pipeline 
regulations, which was adopted in response to the Energy Policy Act of 
1992, provides specific substantive standards for filing complaints 
concerning both rate and non-rate matters. For rates established under 
section 342.3 (indexing), a complaint

must allege reasonable grounds for asserting that the rate violates 
the applicable ceiling level, or that the rate increase is so 
substantially in excess of the actual cost increases incurred by the 
carrier that the rate is unjust and unreasonable, or that the rate 
decrease is so substantially less than the actual cost decrease 
incurred by the carrier that the rate is unjust and unreasonable.

For rates established under section 342.4(c) (other rate changing 
methodologies), a complaint ``must allege reasonable grounds for 
asserting that the rate is so substantially in excess of the actual 
cost increases incurred by the carrier that the rate is unjust and 
unreasonable.'' For non-rate matters, a complaint ``must allege 
reasonable grounds for asserting that the operations or practices 
violate a provision of the Interstate Commerce Act, or of the 
Commission's regulations.'' Section 343.4 requires a response to a 
complaint within 30 days after the complaint is filed. Finally, section 
343.5 provides that the Commission ``may require parties to enter into 
good faith negotiations to settle oil pipeline rate matters.
    The Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL) stated that the Commission 
adopted oil pipeline specific complaint regulations only four years 
ago. AOPL submitted that these regulations work for the oil pipeline 
industry. AOPL stated that oil pipelines are not going through the 
transitions facing the electric and natural gas industries and there is 
no reason to disrupt a procedure that works merely for the convenience 
of having one procedure that applies to all industries.
    The final rule requires complaints concerning oil pipeline non-rate 
matters to comply with the changes to the Commission complaint 
procedures. Complaints concerning rates, however, are not subject to 
all the changes. While non-rate complaints are subject to the new 
substantive informational requirements adopted in section 385.206(b), 
rate complaints would be subject to the existing section 343.2(c) 
substantive rate requirements. While non-rate complaints would have to 
``identify the action or inaction which is alleged to violate 
applicable statutory standards or regulatory requirements'' and 
``explain how the action or inaction violates applicable statutory 
standards or regulatory requirements,'' rate complaints instead would 
have to meet the section 343.2(c) requirements. Therefore, a sentence 
will be added to sections 343.2(c)(1) and (2) indicating that, in 
addition to meeting the requirements of the section, a complaint must 
also comply with the requirements of section 385.206, except sections 
385.206(b)(1) and (2). In all other respects both rate and non-rate 
complaints would be treated the same. The remainder of the 
informational requirements adopted here in section 385.206(b) and the 
other procedural changes discussed throughout this Final Rule thus 
would be applied to all oil pipeline rate complaints. This will ensure 
the consistency of the complaint procedures for all industries 
regulated by the Commission, while preserving the rate complaint 
standards adopted as an integral part of the package of ratemaking 
changes enacted in response to the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

G. Content of Answers

    Section 385.213 adopted in the final rule is modified from that 
proposed to require that answers include ``all documents that support 
the facts in the answer in possession of, or otherwise attainable by, 
the respondent, including, but not limited to, contracts, affidavits, 
and testimony.'' This is parallel to the change made to the 
informational requirements for complaints. The NOPR proposed to revise 
Rule 213 to require that answers to complaints must include all 
documents that support the facts in the answer, including, but not 
limited to contracts, affidavits, and testimony.
    The Commission rejects commenters' requests that the answer only 
admit or deny wrongdoing and not include documents. One of the purposes 
of revising the complaint procedures is to ensure that as much 
information as possible is available to the Commission and the parties 
to the proceeding as early as possible. An answer which simply admits 
or denies facts without any more would prolong the proceeding by 
requiring the Commission or other parties to request further 
information by other means.
    In addition, the final rule is adopting for answers the same 
confidentiality provisions as those adopted for complaints as discussed 
in section A above. Thus, a respondent would file its complete answer 
with a request for privileged treatment pursuant to section 388.112 of 
the Commission's regulations. The complainant and other parties would 
receive a redacted version of the complaint along with a respondent-
proposed protective agreement. The complainant and parties would 
receive the privileged version of the answer by executing the 
protective agreement and returning it to the respondent.
    Section 385.213 adopted in the Final Rule is modified from that 
proposed to require the respondent to describe the formal or consensual 
process it proposes for resolving the complaint. This requirement was 
discussed in the NOPR but was not included in the proposed regulations.
    In the NOPR, the Commission stated that, to the extent that a 
respondent does not comply with Rule 213, the Commission will consider 
granting the relief requested by the complainant based upon the 
pleadings alone. The Commission further stated that respondents filing 
what is in essence a general denial would do so at their own peril. 
Williams Companies contended that relief should not be granted by 
default. The Commission's discussion in the NOPR with respect to 
answers was not a new proposal. Rather, the Commission was only 
reiterating the procedure in section 385.213(c)(3) of its existing 
regulations, which provides for summary dispositions, pursuant to 
section 385.217, of answers that do not satisfy certain requirements.

[[Page 17093]]

H. Complaint Resolution Paths

    Section 385.206(g) adopted in the final rule describes a number of 
procedural options that the Commission may use to resolve issues raised 
in complaints. These complaint resolution paths are (1) alternative 
dispute resolution, (2) decision on the pleadings by the Commission, 
and (3) hearing before an ALJ. Where a highly credible claim for relief 
is presented, and a persuasive showing is made that standard complaint 
resolution processing may not provide timely relief as quickly as 
circumstances may demand, the Commission will put the complaint on a 
Fast Track, to provide for expedited action by the Commission or an ALJ 
in a matter of weeks. The Fast Track process is described in section 
385.206(h) of the regulations adopted by the final rule. Preliminary 
relief pending a resolution of the complaint by either the Commission 
or an ALJ may be requested. A ruling on preliminary relief by an ALJ 
would be appealable to the Commission. Such an appeal is provided for 
in section 385.206(g)(2) adopted in the final rule. It is not the same 
as an interlocutory appeal that would be filed pursuant to section 
385.715 of the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission in the NOPR did not propose to establish overall 
time limits within which complaints must be resolved. It did, however, 
describe target time frames that would allow a resolution of a 
complaint as expeditiously as possible given the issues, parties, 
circumstances, and the type of procedure used. A number of commenters 
(Pipeline Customer Coalition, Fertilizer Institute, NGSA, American 
Public Power Association, Electric Power Supply Association, USDA-Rural 
Utilities Service) requested that the Commission codify deadlines for 
actions in the proposed regulations. Other commenters (INGAA, El Paso 
Energy, Duke Energy) asserted that target dates, not strict deadlines, 
are appropriate.
    The Commission intends to resolve complaints as quickly as possible 
but does not consider it necessary to codify deadlines in its 
regulations. Specific targets for action, however, will provide 
guidelines that may help meet an accelerated procedural agenda. The 
Commission, therefore, will adopt the target time frames discussed in 
the NOPR and below. At the same time, having target, rather than 
required, time frames will allow the Commission the flexibility to 
adjust when necessary to particular complicated issues and unforeseen 
circumstances.
(i) Alternative Dispute Resolution
    Section 385.206(b)(9) of the final rule requires that a complainant 
state what types of ADR procedures could be used to resolve the 
complaint or describe any process that has been agreed on for resolving 
the complaint. Section 385.213(c)(4) of the final rule requires that 
the respondent in its answer describe the formal or consensual process 
it proposes for resolving the complaint. If there is agreement among 
the parties that a specific ADR procedure should be used, the 
Commission would simply assign the case to ADR. If there are competing 
proposals for the use of ADR, the Commission could attempt to obtain 
agreement from the affected parties for the use of one of the ADR 
proposals. If no agreement concerning the use of ADR can be reached, 
the complaint will be assigned to a settlement judge pursuant to 
section 385.603 of the Commission's regulations or resolved using one 
of the other complaint resolution paths.
    Since ADR is a voluntary process, the time period in which a 
decision can be rendered is largely in the control of the affected 
parties. The Commission, however, would treat ADR resolution like 
uncontested settlements, and would therefore expect to issue any 
subsequent orders no later than 45 days after the ADR resolution is 
rendered.
(ii) Commission Decision on the Pleadings
    Many complaints can be decided by the Commission based on the 
pleadings alone. These types of cases usually involve discrete issues 
that do not require development of a record before an ALJ.
    The complaint would be assigned for consideration as soon as an 
answer is filed and a decision by the Commission would expect to issue 
within 60-90 days later. In some instances there might be a need to 
clarify the parties' understanding of facts at issue, but this could be 
accomplished through Staff data requests without affecting the overall 
time for resolving the complaint. The total time within which a 
Commission decision could be expected thus would be 110 days after a 
complaint is filed.
(iii) Hearing Before an ALJ
    Complaints not set for ADR consideration and not appropriate for 
consideration on the pleadings alone would be set for hearing before an 
ALJ for development of a factual record. When a complaint is set for 
hearing before an ALJ, the objective will be for the ALJ to render an 
initial decision no later than 60 days after the case is set for 
hearing. Briefs on exceptions to an initial decision then would be due, 
under the Commission's rules, 30 days after the initial decision, and 
briefs opposing exceptions, 20 days thereafter. The Commission would 
expect to issue an order on the exceptions no later than 90 days after 
their filing. Thus, the total time for resolving these cases would be 
no more than 220 days from the filing of the complaint. In most 
instances it should be possible for an initial decision to be issued 
within 60 days because the issues raised in complaints are often narrow 
or discrete questions, and not the kind of wide range issues presented 
in general rate cases. However, because these are target timeframes, 
the ALJ will retain discretion to issue an initial decision in less or 
more time, taking into account the complexity of the case, the number 
of issues, or other factors.
    A number of commenters (Enron, Enron Capital and Trade, Williams, 
Koch, INGAA, Entergy, Southern Companies, and Duke Energy) requested 
that complaints about changes to rates or tariffs be excluded from the 
proposed procedures. No category of complaint should be excluded from 
the proposed procedures. The Commission recognizes, however, that there 
will be complaint cases that might not lend themselves to an initial 
decision within 60 days. In such cases, involving large numbers of 
parties, more complex issues, or difficult circumstances, the Presiding 
ALJ could adjust the time frames as necessary to ensure development of 
a complete record. This should alleviate the commenters' concerns.
(iv) Fast Track Processing
    In instances involving disputes that require relief more quickly 
than the usual target timeframes, the Commission will employ Fast Track 
processing as a complement to its standard complaint resolution paths. 
The Fast Track process is described in section 385.206(h) of the 
regulations adopted by the final rule. The Fast Track will be available 
when a complainant requests it and presents a highly credible claim and 
persuasive showing that the standard processes will not be capable of 
resolving the complaint promptly enough to provide meaningful relief. 
An example might be where a shipper seeks access to a pipeline under 
the Natural Gas Act, Natural Gas Policy Act or Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act, alleging that the pipeline has unjustifiably withheld 
service causing irreparable

[[Page 17094]]

harm. Another example might be where a transmission service provider 
allegedly is blocking a customer's access to disputed transmission 
capacity, essentially preventing a power purchase from an alternate 
supplier and causing irreparable harm. A complainant requesting Fast 
Track processing will be required to provide a satisfactory explanation 
concerning whether ADR has been pursued prior to filing the complaint.
    Under Fast Track processing, there would be an immediate (same or 
next day) screening of a complaint alleging a need for accelerated 
action to ensure that the complaint warrants accelerated processing. If 
warranted, the answer period could be shortened to only several days. 
After the respondent filed its answer, a further screening would decide 
whether to assign the complaint for Fast Track processing. If the 
complaint failed to meet the criteria for Fast Track processing, the 
complaint would be processed under one of the standard complaint 
resolution paths.
    Complaints found to require the Fast Track processing would be 
assigned for consideration expeditiously. The Commission expects to 
issue a procedural decision to institute a hearing, establish ADR or 
settlement procedures, if necessary and appropriate, within two or 
three days after receiving answers to the complaint. The Fast Track 
process, which is not appropriate for all complaints, seeks to provide 
all interested parties with prompt resolution of time sensitive 
complaints. Since this process is innovative and largely untested, the 
Commission may examine its results in a year and may consider 
appropriate changes or improvements to the process. Those that require 
record development would be assigned to an ALJ for a prompt hearing to 
receive oral testimony. Upon completing the hearing, the ALJ would 
issue an initial decision either in writing or by reading it into the 
record. An initial decision on a complaint assigned to Fast Track 
processing could be expected in significantly less time than the 60 
days generally contemplated for complaints not directed to the Fast 
Track process. Hearing procedures may be compressed into only a few 
days if the circumstances warrant. Cases not presenting questions for 
which record development would be necessary would be assigned directly 
to the Commission for resolution based on the pleadings. It is expected 
that the Commission could issue an order on the merits within 20 days 
after the answer is filed.
    Rulings on requests for preliminary relief also can be considered 
under the Fast Track process. Relief could be granted either by an ALJ, 
where the case has been set for hearing, or by the Commission, where 
the case has not been set for hearing.
    Fast Track processing will be employed in only limited 
circumstances because of the extraordinarily compressed time schedule 
that would place a heavy burden on all parties to the proceeding. The 
Commission strongly encourages potential complainants to seek Fast 
Track processing sparingly and only in the most unusual cases that 
demand such accelerated treatment. A misuse of Fast Track processing 
could ultimately tax the Commission's limited resources and jeopardize 
the availability of the Fast Track procedures. Any continuing pattern 
of misuse by a particular party would also ultimately undermine that 
party's credibility when future requests for Fast Track processing are 
requested.
(v) Preliminary Relief
    Any complaint can include a request for preliminary relief pending 
a final merits decision on the complaint itself. If the complaint is 
assigned for hearing, the ALJ will rule on the preliminary relief; the 
Commission will rule on preliminary relief requested as part of a 
complaint being considered based on the pleadings. Requests for 
preliminary relief would be acted on while the Commission or an ALJ is 
also considering the merits of the complaint. If the complaint has been 
designated for Fast Track processing, a ruling on preliminary relief 
would be almost immediate.
    Where an ALJ acts on a request for preliminary relief, an appeal to 
the Commission will lie and may be filed within 7 days of the ALJ's 
decision. The Commission will issue a decision on the appeal promptly. 
Section 385.206(g) of the final rule has been revised from that 
proposed to provide for appeals of an ALJ's decision on preliminary 
relief. Decisions by the Commission on requests for preliminary relief 
would be subject to the Commission's rules on rehearing.
    Complainants could request preliminary relief in the form of a stay 
or extension of time, or affirmative action. The standard for granting 
extensions of time would be the good cause showing, found in section 
385.2008 of the Commission's regulations.19 The standard 
applicable to requests for stay would be that set forth in section 705 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 705 (1988), i.e., the 
stay will be granted if ``justice so requires.'' The standard for 
granting affirmative preliminary relief would be that employed by the 
courts for such relief, namely, the four part test described in the 
NOPR--(1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether irreparable 
injury to the complainant will occur if the relief is not granted; (3) 
whether the injury outweighs harm to the respondent or other parties if 
the relief is granted; and (4) other public interest 
considerations.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 18 CFR 385.2008 (1998).
    \20\ See Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n. v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 
925 (D.C. Cir. 1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Simplified Procedures for Small Controversies

    The Commission currently has in place, and is codifying in this 
Final Rule, Enforcement Hotline procedures. The Enforcement Hotline is 
a resource particularly well suited for resolving disputes over small 
amounts of money or seeking limited forms of relief. It provides a 
forum for the Hotline staff through discussion and negotiation to 
resolve disagreements brought informally to its attention. Many small 
controversies have been concluded successfully through the Hotline 
without the necessity of formal proceedings before the Commission, thus 
saving the disputing parties much time, effort, and money. The 
Commission, therefore, encourages parties with limited complaints to 
seek relief in the first instance through the Enforcement Hotline. The 
Commission also recognizes, however, that there will be instances where 
the Hotline staff has not been able to bring about a resolution of a 
dispute brought to it. For these cases the final rule is adopting a 
procedure for complaints involving small controversies that will allow 
them to be resolved more simply and expeditiously than more complicated 
matters. This procedure will be codified in new section 385.218. 
Although this procedure will be available to all complainants 
regardless of size, it will primarily benefit small customers who would 
typically have small amounts in dispute and who may not have the 
financial resources available to pursue a formal complaint under the 
regulations adopted here. A lack of financial resources should not be 
an impediment to injured parties seeking relief before this Commission.
    The adopted procedure is based, in part, on the recommendations of 
the American Public Gas Association (APGA). The procedure will be 
available if the amount in controversy is less than $100,000 and the 
impact on other entities is de minimis. The procedure will be available 
to all customers, not

[[Page 17095]]

just small customers. This answers the concerns of Enron Capital and 
Trade, Indicated Shippers, NGSA, EEI, and CSW Operating Companies who 
asserted that a small claims procedure should apply to small amounts as 
well as small customers. In the Commission's view, the $100,000 ceiling 
and the requirement of a de minimis impact on other customers should 
alleviate parties' concerns that a complex complaint could be filed 
under this procedure.
    Complainants under the simplified procedure will be required to 
submit a short form complaint which states (1) the name of the 
complainant, (2) the name of the respondent, (3) a description of the 
relationship to the respondent, for example, firm shipper, competitor, 
etc., (4) the amount in controversy, (5) why the complaint will have a 
de minimis impact on other entities, (6) the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the complaint, including the legal or regulatory obligation 
breached by the respondent, and (7) the requested relief. The 
complainant is encouraged, but not required, to attach any relevant 
documents to its complaint.
    The complainant will be required to simultaneously serve the 
complaint on the respondent and any other entity referenced in the 
complaint. A notice of the complaint will be issued promptly, usually 
within 2 days. The Commission is not codifying the notice period in the 
final rule because, as with regular complaints, the date of issuance of 
the notice of a complaint is not crucial to a speedy resolution of a 
complaint proceeding because the time for filing answers, comments, and 
interventions is calculated based on the date the complaint is filed 
rather than the date of the notice.
    Answers, interventions and comments will be required within 10 days 
of the filing of the complaint. In cases where privileged treatment of 
documents is requested by the complainant, answers, interventions, and 
comments will be due within 20 days after the complaint is filed. This 
will account for the time needed for parties to execute protective 
agreements and receive the privileged information. It is the same 
approach that is being used for regular complaints. Given the more 
limited nature of complaints filed under the simplified procedure, the 
10 day answer period should be sufficient. An answer to a complaint 
will have to follow the current practice under Rule 213. A respondent 
is encouraged, but not required, to provide any relevant documents.
    APGA recommended that the Commission or a delegated official issue 
an order within 30 days after the answer and an aggrieved party be able 
to seek rehearing within 15 days after the decision. Because of the 
less complex nature of complaints filed under the simplified procedure 
it is likely that the Commission could issue an order more 
expeditiously than in other types of complaint cases, perhaps within as 
little as 30 days after an answer is filed. Requests for rehearing will 
have to be filed in accordance with the relevant statute, to the extent 
the statute provides for rehearing, and the Commission's regulations.
    APGA suggested that the order issued not be published in the 
official reporter and not have precedential value. The Commission will 
not adopt such a proposal. It is important for the Commission to have a 
body of precedent on which both the Commission and potential 
complainants under the simplified procedure could rely.

J. Revisions to ADR Regulations

    The final rule revises Rules 604, 605 and 606 to conform to the 
1996 ADRA by eliminating the termination and opt-out provisions, and 
providing that the confidentiality provisions of the 1996 ADRA pre-empt 
the disclosure requirements of the FOIA.
    A number of commenters (Wisconsin Distributor Group, INGAA, 
Equilon, AOPL) assert that ADR settlements should not be subject to 
notice and comments. A number of other commenters (Transmission 
Dependent Utility Systems, Missouri PSC, Joint Consumer Advocates) 
support notice and comment on ADR settlements. The final rule does not 
revise the regulations to indicate that settlement agreements reached 
through ADR are not subject to the notice and comment requirements of 
Rule 602 unless the Commission takes affirmative action within 30 days.
    The changes concerning the termination, opt-out, and 
confidentiality provisions are to reflect the changes contained in the 
1996 Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The Commission will require 
ADR settlements to be subject to notice and comment because, in many 
instances, settlements entered into by regulated companies can affect 
parties who were not part of the ADR process.

K. Codification of Hotline Procedures

    To make the Enforcement Hotline easier to use, the final rule 
codifies the current Hotline procedures in a new Section 1b.21.
    A number of parties were concerned about parties' ability to make 
anonymous complaints. The Commission emphasizes that the final rule is 
not adopting any new procedures with respect to the Enforcement 
Hotline, but has simply codified its longstanding practice.
    The Commission declines to adopt the proposal offered by several 
commenters that the Commission should separate Hotline functions from 
prosecutorial functions of the Enforcement Section. Parties respond to 
Hotline calls promptly because they know that Enforcement Staff may 
institute investigations if valid complaints cannot be resolved 
informally.
    With respect to the issue of the availability of the Hotline to 
West Coast parties, calls after business hours can be handled by voice 
mail and the Hotline Staff will return the call the next business day. 
The Commission has also established an Enforcement Hotline e-mail 
address. It is [email protected].

L. Miscellaneous

    EEI and the Utility Coalition stated that complaints should be able 
to be filed by both public utilities and their customers. NRECA stated 
that the Commission should not allow jurisdictional entities to file 
complaints against nonjurisdictional entities. Transmission Dependent 
Utility Systems stated that transmission customers should not be the 
subject of complaints.
    In their reply comments, APPA and Transmission Access Policy Study 
Group asserted that the regulations proposed in the NOPR should not be 
expanded to provide for FERC jurisdiction over complaints seeking 
enforcement of filed rates against nonjurisdictional customers.
    The Commission is not persuaded of the necessity of revising its 
regulations in this regard at this time. The circumstances under which 
the Commission has in the past and would in the future be requested to 
address nonjurisdictional customer conduct would involve situations 
such as a customer's failure to comply with the terms of public 
utility's tariff, rate schedules, or contracts. The Commission believes 
that the current approach taken by the regulations, which allows the 
Commission to address such matters on a case by case basis, does not 
need revision.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    The following collection of information contained in this final 
rule is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review under Section 3507(d) of the

[[Page 17096]]

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.21 FERC identifies the 
information provided under 18 CFR Part 385 as FERC-600. FERC-600 
consolidates certain existing information collection requirements from 
the various FERC program offices into one information collection number 
and accounts for the incremental burden placed on persons filing under 
the proposed regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (Supp. I 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission in the NOPR solicited comments on the Commission's 
need for this information, whether the information will have practical 
utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, 
and any suggested methods for minimizing the burden on persons filing 
under the revised complaint procedures, including the use of automated 
information techniques. No comments were received.
    Estimated Annual Burden: The burden estimates for complying with 
this final rule are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of        Number of        Hours per       Total annual
               Data collection                  respondents       responses         response          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-600....................................              75               75               14            1,050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collection (Reporting + record keeping, if 
appropriate) = 1,050.
    Based on the Commission's experience with complaints, it is 
estimated that about 75 filings per year will be made over the next 
three years at a burden of 14 hours per filing, for a total annual 
burden of 1,050 hours under the proposed regulations. The Commission's 
expectation is that receiving more information in the complaint will 
lessen the subsequent burden on parties and will shorten the time for 
resolving a complaint. There is no annual reporting burden under the 
current regulations.
    The OMB regulations require OMB to approve certain information 
collection requirements imposed by agency rule.22 
Accordingly, pursuant to OMB regulations, the Commission provided 
notice of its information collection to OMB. OMB did not comment or 
take any action on the NOPR. Therefore, an OMB control number was not 
given for this collection of information.

    \22\ 5 CFR 1320.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: FERC-600, Rules of Practice and Procedure
Action: Proposed Data Collection.
OMB Control No. 1902-____________

The respondent shall not be penalized for failure to respond to this 
collection of information unless the collection of information displays 
a valid OMB control number.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, including small 
businesses.
    Frequency of Responses: Infrequent.
    Necessity of Information: The final rule requires persons filing 
complaints and answers to complaints with the Commission to satisfy 
certain informational requirements, and to provide supporting 
documentation for the allegations in a complaint and answer to a 
complaint. The information will allow the Commission to properly 
evaluate a complaint and resolve it in a timely manner.
    Internal Review: The Commission has assured itself, by means of its 
internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the 
burden estimates associated with the information collection 
requirements. The Commission's Offices of General Counsel, Pipeline 
Regulation, Electric Power Regulation, and Hydropower Licensing, will 
use the data to make decisions with respect to the merits of a 
complaint. This internal review determination involves among, other 
things, an examination of adequacy of design, cost, reliability, 
redundancy of the information to be required. These requirements 
conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, 
communication, and management within the interstate natural gas 
pipeline, oil pipeline, electric and hydroelectric industries.
    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 Chief Information Officer, Phone: (202) 
208-1415, fax: (202) 208-2425, e-mail: [email protected]].
    Questions concerning the collection of information and the 
associated burden estimate should be sent to the contact listed above 
and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC, 20503. [Attention: Desk Officer for 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-3087, fax: 
(202) 395-7285.

V. Environmental Analysis

    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.23 The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these 
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment.24 The actions proposed to be taken here fall 
within categorical exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules 
that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information 
gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and 
transportation of natural gas that requires no construction of 
facilities.25 Therefore, an environmental assessment is 
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & 
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 para. 30,783 (1987).
    \24\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \25\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to prepare 
certain statements, descriptions and analyses of proposed rules that 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.26 The Commission is not required to make 
such analyses if a rule would not have such an effect.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (1994).
    \27\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b)(1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe that this rule would have such an 
impact on small entities. The majority of complaints filed with the 
Commission have been by companies who do not meet the RFA's definition 
of a small entity whether or not they are under the Commission's 
jurisdiction.28 Further, the final rule will speed up the 
complaint process in general and in particular for those cases where 
small business entities have been the subject

[[Page 17097]]

of an alleged detriment. This proposed rule will be beneficial to small 
entities. Therefore, the Commission certifies that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3)(1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Effective Date And Congressional Notification

    The regulations are effective May 10, 1999. The Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 requires agencies to report 
to Congress on the promulgation of certain final rules prior to their 
effective dates.29 That reporting requirement applies to 
this Final Rule. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 5 U.S.C. 801 (Supp. III 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 1b

    Investigations.

18 CFR Part 343

    Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 385

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

    By the Commission.
David P. Boergers,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Parts 1b, 
343, and 385, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as set 
forth below.

PART 1b--RULES RELATING TO INVESTIGATIONS

    1. The authority citation for Part 1b is amended to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 792 et seq.; 49 
U.S.C. 60502; 49 A.P. U.S.C. 1-85; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; E.O. 12009, 
42 FR 46267.

    2. In section 1b.1, new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 1b.1  Definition.

* * * * *
    (d) Enforcement Hotline is a forum in which to address quickly and 
informally any matter within the Commission's jurisdiction concerning 
natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines, electric utilities and 
hydroelectric projects.
    3. In Part 1b, new section 1b.21 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 1b.21  Enforcement hotline.

    (a) The Hotline Staff may provide information to the public and 
give informal staff opinions. The opinions given are not binding on the 
General Counsel or the Commission.
    (b) Any person may seek information or the informal resolution of a 
dispute by calling or writing to the Hotline at the telephone number 
and address in paragraph (f) of this section. The Hotline Staff will 
informally seek information from the caller and any respondent, as 
appropriate. The Hotline Staff will attempt to resolve disputes without 
litigation or other formal proceedings. The Hotline Staff may not 
resolve matters that are before the Commission in docketed proceedings.
    (c) All information and documents obtained through the Hotline 
Staff shall be treated as non-public by the Commission and its staff, 
consistent with the provisions of section 1b.9 of this part.
    (d) Calls to the Hotline may be made anonymously.
    (e) Any person who contacts the Hotline is not precluded from 
filing a formal action with the Commission if discussions assisted by 
Hotline Staff are unsuccessful at resolving the matter. A caller may 
terminate use of the Hotline procedure at any time.
    (f) The Hotline may be reached by calling (202) 208-1390 or toll 
free (877) 303-4340, by e-mail at [email protected], or writing to: 
Enforcement Hotline, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426.

PART 343--PROCEDURAL RULES APPLICABLE TO OIL PIPELINE PROCEEDINGS

    1. The authority citation for Part 343 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 571-583; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 
60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85.

    2. In section 343.2 paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 343.2  Requirements for filing interventions, protests and 
complaints.

* * * * *
    (c) Other requirements for filing protests or complaints--(1) Rates 
established under Sec. 342.3 of this chapter. A protest or complaint 
filed against a rate proposed or established pursuant to Sec. 342.3 of 
this chapter must allege reasonable grounds for asserting that the rate 
violates the applicable ceiling level, or that the rate increase is so 
substantially in excess of the actual cost increases incurred by the 
carrier that the rate is unjust and unreasonable, or that the rate 
decrease is so substantially less than the actual cost decrease 
incurred by the carrier that the rate is unjust and unreasonable. In 
addition to meeting the requirements of the section, a complaint must 
also comply with all the requirements of Sec. 385.206, except 
Sec. 385.206(b)(1) and (2).
    (2) Rates established under Sec. 342.4(c) of this chapter. A 
protest or complaint filed against a rate proposed or established under 
Sec. 342.4(c) of this chapter must allege reasonable grounds for 
asserting that the rate is so substantially in excess of the actual 
cost increases incurred by the carrier that the rate is unjust and 
unreasonable. In addition to meeting the requirements of the section, a 
complaint must also comply with all the requirements of Sec. 385.206, 
except Sec. 385.206(b)(1) and (2).
    (3) Non-rate matters. A protest or complaint filed against a 
carrier's operations or practices, other than rates, must allege 
reasonable grounds for asserting that the operations or practices 
violate a provision of the Interstate Commerce Act, or of the 
Commission's regulations. In addition to meeting the requirements of 
this section, a complaint must also comply with the requirements of 
Sec. 385.206.
    3. In section 343.4 paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 343.4  Procedures on complaints.

    (a) Responses. The carrier must file an answer to a complaint filed 
pursuant to section 13(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act within 20 days 
after the filing of the complaint in accordance with Rule 206.
* * * * *

PART 385--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

    1. The authority citation for Part 385 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 
U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 
U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85.

    2. In section 385.206, existing paragraph (b) is redesignated 
paragraph (f) and is revised, existing paragraph (c) is redesignated as 
paragraph (j), and new paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h) and (i) 
are added to read as follows:


Sec. 385.206  Complaints (Rule 206).

* * * * *
    (b) Contents. A complaint must:
    (1) Clearly identify the action or inaction which is alleged to 
violate

[[Page 17098]]

applicable statutory standards or regulatory requirements;
    (2) Explain how the action or inaction violates applicable 
statutory standards or regulatory requirements;
    (3) Set forth the business, commercial, economic or other issues 
presented by the action or inaction as such relate to or affect the 
complainant;
    (4) Make a good faith effort to quantify the financial impact or 
burden (if any) created for the complainant as a result of the action 
or inaction;
    (5) Indicate the practical, operational, or other nonfinancial 
impacts imposed as a result of the action or inaction, including, where 
applicable, the environmental, safety or reliability impacts of the 
action or inaction;
    (6) State whether the issues presented are pending in an existing 
Commission proceeding or a proceeding in any other forum in which the 
complainant is a party, and if so, provide an explanation why timely 
resolution cannot be achieved in that forum;
    (7) State the specific relief or remedy requested, including any 
request for stay, extension of time, or other preliminary relief , and 
in cases seeking other preliminary relief, a detailed explanation of 
why such relief is required addressing:
    (i) The likelihood of success on the merits;
    (ii) The nature and extent of the harm if preliminary relief is 
denied;
    (iii) The balance of the relevant interests, i.e., the hardship to 
nonmovant if preliminary relief is granted contrasted with the hardship 
to the movant if preliminary relief is denied; and
    (iv) The effect, if any, of the decision on preliminary relief on 
the public interest;
    (8) Include all documents that support the facts in the complaint 
in possession of, or otherwise attainable by, the complainant, 
including, but not limited to, contracts, affidavits, and testimony;
    (9) State
    (i) Whether the Enforcement Hotline, Dispute Resolution Service, 
tariff-based dispute resolution mechanisms, or other informal 
procedures were used;
    (ii) Whether the complainant believes that alternative dispute 
resolution (ADR) under the Commission's supervision could successfully 
resolve the complaint;
    (iii) What types of ADR procedures could be used; and
    (iv) Any process that has been agreed on for resolving the 
complaint.
    (10) Include a form of notice suitable for publication in the 
Federal Register and submit a copy of the notice on a separate 3\1/2\ 
inch diskette in ASCII format;
    (11) Explain with respect to requests for Fast Track processing 
pursuant to section 385.206(h), why the standard processes will not be 
adequate for expeditiously resolving the complaint.
    (c) Service. Any person filing a complaint must serve a copy of the 
complaint on the respondent, affected regulatory agencies, and others 
the complainant reasonably knows may be expected to be affected by the 
complaint. Service must be simultaneous with filing at the Commission 
for respondents and affected entities in the same metropolitan area as 
the complainant. Simultaneous or overnight service is permissible for 
respondents and affected entities outside the complainant's 
metropolitan area. Simultaneous service can be accomplished by 
electronic mail, facsimile, express delivery, or messenger.
    (d) Notice. Public notice of the complaint will be issued by the 
Commission.
    (e) Privileged Treatment. (1) If a complainant seeks privileged 
treatment for any documents submitted with the complaint, the 
complainant must submit, with its complaint, a request for privileged 
treatment of documents and information under section 388.112 of this 
chapter and a proposed form of protective agreement. In the event the 
complainant requests privileged treatment under section 388.112 of this 
chapter, it must file the original and three copies of its complaint 
with the information for which privileged treatment is sought and 11 
copies of the pleading without the information for which privileged 
treatment is sought. The original and three copies must be clearly 
identified as containing information for which privileged treatment is 
sought.
    (2) A complainant must provide a copy of its complaint without the 
privileged information and its proposed form of protective agreement to 
each entity that is to be served pursuant to section 385.206(c).
    (3) An interested person must make a written request to the 
complainant for a copy of the complete complaint within 5 days after 
the filing of the complaint. The request must include an executed copy 
of the protective agreement. Any person may file an objection to the 
proposed form of protective agreement.
    (4) A complainant must provide a copy of the complete complaint to 
the requesting person within 5 days after receipt of the written 
request that is accompanied by an executed copy of the protective 
agreement.
    (f) Answers, interventions and comments. Unless otherwise ordered 
by the Commission, answers, interventions, and comments to a complaint 
must be filed within 20 days after the complaint is filed. In cases 
where the complainant requests privileged treatment for information in 
its complaint, answers, interventions, and comments are due within 30 
days after the complaint is filed. In the event there is an objection 
to the protective agreement, the Commission will establish when answers 
will be due.
    (g) Complaint Resolution Paths. (1) One of the following procedures 
may be used to resolve complaints:
    (i) The Commission may assign a case to be resolved through 
alternative dispute resolution procedures in accordance with sections 
385.604-385.606, in cases where the affected parties consent, or the 
Commission may assign the case to a settlement judge in accordance with 
section 385.603;
    (ii) The Commission may issue an order on the merits based upon the 
pleadings;
    (iii) The Commission may establish a hearing before an ALJ;
    (2) The Commission, or an ALJ, may act on requests for preliminary 
relief. In cases where the ALJ rules on a request for preliminary 
relief, an appeal to the Commission may be filed within 7 days of the 
ruling.
    (h) Fast Track Processing. (1) The Commission may resolve 
complaints using Fast Track procedures if the complaint requires 
expeditious resolution. Fast Track procedures may include expedited 
action on the pleadings by the Commission, expedited hearing before an 
ALJ, or expedited action on requests for stay, extension of time, or 
other preliminary relief by the Commission or an ALJ.
    (2) A complainant may request Fast Track processing of a complaint 
by including such a request in its complaint, captioning the complaint 
in bold type face ``COMPLAINT REQUESTING FAST TRACK PROCESSING,'' and 
explaining why expedition is necessary as required by section 
385.206(b)(11).
    (3) Based on an assessment of the need for expedition, the period 
for filing answers, interventions and comments to a complaint 
requesting Fast Track processing may be shortened by the Commission 
from the time provided in section 385.206(f).
    (4) After the answer is filed, the Commission will issue promptly 
an order specifying the procedure and any schedule to be followed.
    (i) Simplified Procedure for Small Controversies. A simplified 
procedure for complaints involving small

[[Page 17099]]

controversies is found in section 385.218 of this subpart.
    3. In section 385.213 paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) are added to read 
as follows:


Sec. 385.213  Answer (Rule 213).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) An answer to a complaint must include all documents that 
support the facts in the answer in possession of, or otherwise 
attainable by, the respondent, including, but not limited to, 
contracts, affidavits, and testimony. An answer is also required to 
describe the formal or consensual process it proposes for resolving the 
complaint.
    (5)(i) A respondent must submit with its answer any request for 
privileged treatment of documents and information under Sec. 388.112 of 
this chapter and a proposed form of protective agreement. In the event 
the respondent requests privileged treatment under Sec. 388.112 of this 
chapter, it must file the original and three copies of its answer with 
the information for which privileged treatment is sought and 11 copies 
of the pleading without the information for which privileged treatment 
is sought. The original and three copies must be clearly identified as 
containing information for which privileged treatment is sought.
    (ii) A respondent must provide a copy of its answer without the 
privileged information and its proposed form of protective agreement to 
each entity that has been served pursuant to Sec. 385.206 (c).
    (iii) An interested person must make a written request to the 
respondent for a copy of the complete answer within 5 days after the 
filing of the answer. The request must include an executed copy of the 
protective agreement. Any person may file an objection to the proposed 
form of protective agreement.
    (iv) A respondent must provide a copy of the complete answer to the 
requesting person within 5 days after receipt of the written request 
and an executed copy of the protective agreement.
* * * * *
    4. New section 385.218 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 385.218  Simplified procedure for complaints involving small 
controversies (Rule 218).

    (a) Eligibility. The procedures under this section are available to 
complainants if the amount in controversy is less than $100,000 and the 
impact on other entities is de minimis.
    (b) Contents. A complaint filed under this section must contain:
    (1) The name of the complainant;
    (2) The name of the respondent;
    (3) A description of the relationship to the respondent;
    (4) The amount in controversy;
    (5) A statement why the complaint will have a de minimis impact on 
other entities;
    (6) The facts and circumstances surrounding the complaint, 
including the legal or regulatory obligation breached by the 
respondent; and
    (7) The requested relief.
    (c) Service. The complainant is required to simultaneously serve 
the complaint on the respondent and any other entity referenced in the 
complaint.
    (d) Notice. Public notice of the complaint will be issued by the 
Commission.
    (e) Answers, Interventions and Comments. (1) An answer to a 
complaint is required to conform to the requirements of 
Sec. 385.213(c)(1), (2), and (3).
    (2) Answers, interventions and comments must be filed within 10 
days after the complaint is filed. In cases where the complainant 
requests privileged treatment for information in its complaint, 
answers, interventions, and comments must be filed within 20 days after 
the complaint is filed. In the event there is an objection to the 
protective agreement, the Commission will establish when answers, 
interventions, and comments are due.
    (f) Privileged Treatment. If a complainant seeks privileged 
treatment for any documents submitted with the complaint, a complainant 
must use the procedures described in section 385.206(e). If a 
respondent seeks privileged treatment for any documents submitted with 
the answer, a respondent must use the procedures described in section 
385.213(c)(5).
    5. In section 385.604, paragraph (d)(3) is removed, paragraphs 
(d)(4), (d)(5), and (d)(6) are redesignated paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(4), 
and (d)(5), paragraph (g) is removed, and paragraph (d)(2) is revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 385.604  Alternative means of dispute resolution (Rule 604).

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) For matters set for hearing under subpart E of this part, a 
proposal to use alternative means of dispute resolution must be filed 
with the presiding administrative law judge.
* * * * *
    6. In section 385.605 paragraph (f) is removed, and paragraphs 
(a)(4) and (e)(2) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 385.605  Arbitration (Rule 605).

    (a) * * *
    (4) An arbitration proceeding under this rule may be monitored as 
provided in Rule 604(f).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) The award in an arbitration proceeding will become final 30 
days after it is served on all parties.
* * * * *
    6. In section 385.606 paragraph (d) is redesignated paragraph 
(d)(1) and paragraphs (d)(2) and (l) are added:


Sec. 385.606  Confidentiality in dispute resolution proceedings (Rule 
606).

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) To qualify for the exemption established under paragraph (l) of 
this section, an alternative confidential procedure under this 
paragraph may not provide for less disclosure than confidential 
procedures otherwise provided under this rule.
* * * * *
    (l) A dispute resolution communication that may not be disclosed 
under this rule shall also be exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 
552(b)(3).

    Note--The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix--List of Commenters

Adirondack Mountain Club
American Electric Power System
American Public Gas Association
American Public Power Association and Transmission Access Policy 
Study Group
American Arbitration Association
ANR Pipeline Company and Colorado Interstate Gas Company
Association of Oil Pipe Lines
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Alberta Dept. of 
Energy
Cenex Pipeline, LLC
Chevron Products Company
Chevron Pipe Line Company
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation and Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company
Consumers Energy Company and Michigan Gas Storage Company
CSW Operating Companies
Duke Energy Companies
Dynegy Inc.
Edison Electric Institute
El Paso Energy Corporation Interstate Pipelines
Electric Power Supply Association
Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp.
Enron Interstate Pipelines
Entergy Service, Inc.
Equilon Pipeline Company LLC
Express Pipeline Partnership
Fertilizer Institute
Florida Cities
Independent Petroleum Association of America
Indicated Shippers
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Joint Consumer Advocates
Keyspan Energy

[[Page 17100]]

Koch Gateway Pipeline Company
Lakehead Pipe Line Company, L.P.
Missouri Public Service Commission
Mobil Pipe Line Company
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Natural Gas Supply Association
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
Oil Pipeline Shipper Group
Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.
Pipeline Customer Coalition
ProLiance Energy, LLC
Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Railroad Commission of Texas
Refinery Holding Company, L.P.
Southern Companies
TAPS Carriers
Transmission Dependent Utility Systems
United States Department of Agriculture--Rural Utilities Service
Utility Coalition
Williams Companies, Inc.
Wisconsin Distributor Group and Northern Distributor Group

[FR Doc. 99-8518 Filed 4-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P