[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 213 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65752-65757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28082]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 157

[Docket No. RM98-16-001; Order No. 608-A]


Collaborative Procedures for Energy Facility Applications; Order 
on Rehearing

Issued October 27, 2000.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule, order on rehearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) affirms, 
modifies, and clarifies its final rule, Order No. 608.\1\ The final 
rule implemented procedural regulations that offer prospective 
applicants seeking to construct, operate or abandon natural gas 
facilities or services the option, in appropriate circumstances and 
prior to filing an application, of designing a collaborative process 
that includes environmental analysis and issue resolution. This pre-
filing collaborative process is optional, is designed to be adaptable 
to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, and is expected 
to result in improvements in filed applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Collaborative Procedures for Energy Facility Applications, 
Order No. 608, 64 FR 51209 (Sept. 22, 1999); FERC Stats. & Regs., 
Regulations Preambles para. 31,080 (Sept. 15, 1999).

EFFECTIVE DATE: Changes to Order No. 608 made in this order on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rehearing will become effective on December 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:   
Richard Hoffmann, Office of Energy Projects, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208-0066
Gordon Wagner, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 219-0122

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    On September 15, 1999, the Commission issued a final rule providing 
prospective applicants for natural gas facilities or services the 
option, in appropriate circumstances and prior to filing an 
application, to employ a collaborative process to identify and address 
significant issues.\1\ Indicated Shippers \2\ filed a timely request 
for rehearing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Composed of Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Shell Offshore Inc., and 
Marathon Oil Company.
    \3\ Mr. Frederick W. Martin filed a letter supporting Indicated 
Shippers' rehearing request. In addition, Travis Kenneth Bynum, I, 
filed a Motion to Deny Rehearing in this docket that raises no 
issues relevant to this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will deny in part and grant in part the request for rehearing, 
for the reasons discussed below.

Background

    Order No. 608 sets forth regulations to govern certain discussions 
that take place prior to the submission of an application to the 
Commission. Under these regulations, a prospective applicant that seeks 
to construct, operate, or abandon natural gas facilities or services 
may, in appropriate circumstances and prior to filing an application, 
design a collaborative process to address and resolve issues raised by 
its proposal.
    The Commission anticipates that if a natural gas company invites 
entities that might be interested in new facilities or services, or in 
the abandonment of existing facilities or services, to identify issues 
and discuss resource impacts as part of the process of developing a 
proposal, this will facilitate the filing of a complete application. A 
project sponsor that is able to submit an application that addresses 
and resolves issues, along with a preliminary draft environmental 
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),\4\ may be processed 
expeditiously. Applications that are incomplete, or that are amended in 
response to issues identified only after filing, or that require the 
submission of additional information or studies or resource impacts 
before the Commission is able to consider the merits, generally take 
longer to process than applications that are uncontentious and 
complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4307a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the final rule, this pre-filing collaborative process 
is optional and voluntary and is intended to be flexible, adaptable, 
and responsive to the facts and circumstances of each particular case. 
The collaborative regulations do not delete or replace any existing 
regulations. Thus, a prospective gas facility applicant that elects to 
forego pre-filing collaborative consultation may continue to use the 
standard authorization procedures.
    A project sponsor that seeks to undertake a pre-filing 
collaboration pursuant to the new regulations must demonstrate to the 
Commission that it has made reasonable efforts to contact and invite 
all potentially interested entities to participate and that it has 
developed a communications protocol to govern how the applicant and 
participants will communicate. The Commission will give public notice 
in the Federal Register of the requested collaboration and invite 
comments. The Commission will review the adequacy of the applicant's 
outreach efforts, consider comments, and weigh whether pre-filing 
discussions are likely to be productive. If the request to collaborate 
is approved, then Commission staff will be assigned to help guide the 
pre-filing process, which can include the preparation of a preliminary 
draft NEPA document. The applicant will maintain a file, available to 
the public, of all relevant documentation of the collaboration, 
including minutes or summaries of meetings.

[[Page 65753]]

    Once underway, a pre-filing collaboration may continue until accord 
has been reached among the participants, until relevant resource issues 
have been considered and a preliminary draft EA or EIS prepared, or 
until the project sponsor or participants conclude further efforts to 
address unresolved issues are unlikely to be productive. A project 
sponsor undertaking a pre-filing collaboration is not foreclosed from 
filing an application at any time, nor is a collaborative participant 
(or non-participant) precluded from intervening and commenting on or 
protesting any aspect of an application once it is filed with the 
Commission and an on-the-record proceeding commences.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ However, where pre-filing discussions result in an applicant 
and participants reaching accord on issues, presumably by means of 
compromises and concessions, the participants may elect to prepare 
an offer of settlement to be submitted to the Commission in 
conjunction with an application. We do not expect participants that 
agree to be bound to a particular position during pre-filing to 
attempt to revise their position post-filing. Further, as stated in 
Sec. 157.22(e)(6), where scientific studies and alternative route 
analyses are included as part of a pre-filing collaboration, 
``[a]dditional requests for studies may be made to the Commission 
after the filing of an application only for good cause shown.'' This 
is to avoid duplicative efforts and avoid delay. Of course, if there 
is a legitimate need for additional studies, the Commission will 
require them as part of its process of reviewing the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Rehearing

    Indicated Shippers repeat objections raised in response to the 
Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking \6\ and assert the final 
rule fails to respond adequately to these objections; consequently, 
Indicated Shippers argue the final rule does not constitute reasoned 
decisionmaking. Indicated Shippers claim the pre-filing collaborative 
process would force entities to participate in pre-filing proceedings, 
discount or disregard the concerns of potentially affected entities, 
and result in biased decision making by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 63 FR 59916 (Nov. 6, 1998); FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed 
Regulations para. 32,536 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Authority To Implement Pre-Filing Collaborative Regulations

    Indicated Shippers contend that section 7 of the Natural Gas Act 
(NGA) does not expressly authorize the Commission to promulgate pre-
filing collaborative procedures and believe the Commission's review 
process should only begin after an application is filed. Indicated 
Shippers maintain pre-filing collaboration may render the Commission's 
post-filing consideration ``academic and nothing more than an empty 
formality,'' \7\ whereby the Commission would rubber-stamp the outcome 
of a pre-filing collaboration. Indicated Shippers stress such action 
would contravene NGA section 7(c)(1)(B), which provides for notice and 
hearing following the filing of an application. While the Commission 
describes participation in a pre-filing collaboration as optional and 
voluntary, Indicated Shippers challenge this characterization, 
contending interested entities will be compelled to either participate 
in pre-filing procedures or otherwise lose their only meaningful 
opportunity to present their concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Indicated Shippers' Request for Rehearing at 7 (Oct. 15, 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Response

    Indicated Shippers is correct that the NGA does not specify 
procedural formalities to be followed prior to the time the Commission 
is asked to act in response to a petition. The Order No. 608 
regulations establish an outline for certain pre-filing formalities, 
but these regulations only apply where a prospective applicant and 
interested entities agree to adhere to them, i.e., they are voluntary. 
Further, being present at or absent from a pre-filing collaboration 
will not prejudice an entity's capacity to endorse or object to a 
proposed project subsequent to the applicant's submission to the 
Commission of a request for authorization. Finally, section 16 of the 
NGA grants the Commission ``power to perform any and all acts, and to 
prescribe, issue, make, amend, and rescind such orders, rules, and 
regulations as it may find necessary or appropriate to carry out the 
provisions of this act.'' In this case, we find the regulations put in 
place by this rule are appropriate to promote the efficient review of 
requests NGA section 7 authorizations.
    Indicated Shippers acknowledge that prior to Order No. 608, 
prospective applicants have engaged in pre-filing discussions, 
typically with Commission staff. Project sponsors also typically 
negotiate for easements with landowners along a prospective right-of-
way and confer with resource agencies prior to proposing a route for 
new facilities. These conversations and negotiations occur in 
anticipation of obtaining NGA section 7(b) abandonment approval or 
section 7(c) certificate authorization, but for the most part, proceed 
unaided by Commission regulation. The new regulations offer an option 
to enhance the utility of such discussions by directing a project 
sponsor to contact a more inclusive range of potentially affected 
entities and providing a framework to identify issues and initiate the 
NEPA review process. In effect, the Order No. 608 regulations encourage 
a project sponsor to converse collectively, not individually, and in 
public, not in private, with all affected entities in a single forum, 
subject to formalities designed to promote constructive dialogue.
    Indicated Shippers' concern that a pre-filing collaboration could 
curtail entities' capability to bring concerns to the Commission 
following filing is unfounded. As discussed in the final rule, all 
entities have the option of participating in or abstaining from a 
collaboration, and participants are under no obligation to agree not to 
contest aspects of a proposal.
    After a collaboration concludes and an application is filed, the 
Commission will consider the requested authorization in conformity with 
our standard procedures governing notice, comment, and the examination 
of all relevant issues. Regardless of the outcome of a pre-filing 
collaboration, following filing all interested entities will have a 
meaningful opportunity to comment and raise concerns. If collaborative 
participants reach agreements that are submitted in conjunction with an 
application, we will review the results, and then accept, reject, or 
modify the terms of the participants' agreements when we act on the 
application. Although we anticipate collaborative accords may enhance 
the acuity of our review of an application, we stress that regardless 
of the uniformity and ardor with which collaborative participants urge 
on a particular proposal, no authorization will issue unless we 
determine that a project is required by the public convenience and 
necessity.

Adequacy of Notice of a Pre-Filing Collaboration

    A project sponsor seeking Commission approval to use the pre-filing 
collaborative process must demonstrate that it has made reasonable 
efforts to notify all potentially affected entities. Section 157.22(d) 
of the regulations states that the Commission ``will give public notice 
in the Federal Register of a request to initiate a pre-filing 
collaboration. If the Commission approves the request,\8\ 
Sec. 157.22(e)(1) states that ``[t]o the extent feasible under the 
circumstances of the process, the

[[Page 65754]]

Commission will give notice in the Federal Register . . . of the 
initial information meeting or meetings and the scoping of 
environmental issues.'' \9\ Indicated Shippers question whether these 
procedures will be sufficient to ensure that potentially interested 
entities will have adequate notice of a proposal to initiate a pre-
filing collaboration and the Commission's acceptance thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Section 375.307(h) of the regulations delegates to the 
Director of the Office of Energy Projects the authority to determine 
whether to approve a request to use pre-filing collaborative 
procedures.
    \9\ 18 CFR 157.22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indicated Shippers suspect a prospective applicant might serve 
notice selectively in an effort to exclude persons likely to object to 
the proposal. Further, Indicated Shippers note that Sec. 157.22(b)(3) 
states that an applicant that decides to seek Commission approval to 
undertake a pre-filing collaboration, after inviting potentially 
interested entities to participate, is to then inform ``all entities 
contacted by the applicant that have expressed an interest in the pre-
filing collaborative process'' of its decision. Indicated Shippers 
object that this approach not only does nothing to cure omissions in an 
applicant's initial notification; rather, it restricts notice of 
Commission approval of a collaboration to only those entities that an 
applicant had previously contacted that had responded to express an 
interest.
    Mr. Frederick W. Martin requests that notification of a proposed 
collaboration be sent by certified mail to all landowners with property 
eligible for listing on the National Registry of Historic Places.

Commission Response

    Section 157.22(b)(1) of our regulations directs a project sponsor 
seeking to initiate a pre-filing collaboration to make ``a reasonable 
effort'' to contact ``resource agencies, local governments, Indian 
tribes, citizens' groups, landowners, customers, and others'' that 
might be interested in its proposal. Commission staff will work closely 
with project sponsors to ensure that such outreach efforts are 
comprehensive. Where we find a prospective applicant's efforts at 
notification to be inadequate, or the range of contacted parties to be 
too narrow, we will not grant the request to use the collaborative 
process unless identified defects are remedied. Thus, selective 
notification, as a means to handpick participants, is incompatible with 
the collaborative approach expressed in the final rule. We do not 
believe a more thorough application will result, or the time required 
to obtain project authorization will be reduced, by conducting a 
collaboration that merely serves as a forum for the like-minded to 
praise a proposal.
    We will adopt Indicated Shippers' suggestion to modify the 
regulations to ensure that potentially interested entities be made 
aware of Commission approval of a request to use the collaborative 
process. Accordingly, we change Sec. 157.22(e)(1) to read as follows:

    The Commission will publish notice of its authorization to use 
the pre-filing process in the Federal Register; the applicant will 
publish notice of the Commission's authorization to use the pre-
filing process in a local newspaper of general circulation in the 
county or counties in which the proposed project is to be located. 
To the extent feasible, the applicants' notice will specify the time 
and place of the initial information meeting(s) and the scoping of 
environmental issues and will be sent to a mailing list approved by 
the Commission that includes the names and addresses of landowners 
affected by the project.

    In reference to Indicated Shippers' argument for broader 
notification requirements, we clarify that the Commission-approved 
mailing list is expected to include all entities filing comments in 
response to the notice of a request to use the pre-filing process. 
However, we will not modify Sec. 157.22(b)(3), which restricts the 
scope of the second round of notification--i.e., notice that a request 
to use the pre-filing process has been submitted to the Commission--to 
the subset of potentially interested entities that have responded to 
the Sec. 157.22(b)(1) invitation and expressed an interest in the pre-
filing process. If a project sponsor makes an adequate initial effort 
to invite potentially interested entities to participate in a pre-
filing collaboration, we find no need for the project sponsor to 
continue to inform non-responsive or uninterested entities of ongoing 
developments.
    We also find no need to compel a project sponsor to send certified 
mail to certain landowners, as proposed by Mr. Frederick W. Martin, 
since we believe the above-described requirements will be sufficient to 
ensure adequate notice. Further, we note the early notification 
requirements recently put in place in Sec. 157.6(d) of our regulations 
are designed to ensure that landowners that may be affected by a 
proposed project have ample time and opportunity to participate in the 
Commission's consideration of a proposal following the filing of an 
application.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Landowner Notification, Expanded Categorical 
Exclusions, and Other Environmental Filing Requirements, Order No. 
609, 64 FR 57374, (Oct. 25, 1999); FERC Stats. and Regs., 
Regulations Preambles para. 31,082 (Oct. 13, 1999), order on reh'g, 
Order No. 609-A, 65 FR 15234 (Mar. 22, 2000); FERC Stats. and Regs., 
Regulations Preambles para. 31,095 (Mar. 16, 2000), order rejecting 
reh'g, 91 FERC para. 61,278 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adequacy of the Documentation of a Pre-filing Collaboration

    Indicated Shippers are concerned the documentation of a pre-filing 
collaboration may not be adequate or timely and urge the Commission to 
ensure interested parties have access to information on an ongoing 
collaboration, without the need to actively participate in the process, 
by requiring the prospective applicant to make periodic reports to the 
Commission summarizing the progress of the pre-filing proceeding.

Commission Response

    We are persuaded that periodic reporting on a collaboration will 
facilitate an entity's oversight of an ongoing proceeding, in 
particular where an entity has interests in separate, simultaneous 
collaborative proceedings. Therefore, we will require that a 
collaborative sponsor submit quarterly reports on the progress of a 
collaboration. Such reports should summarize meetings held, topics 
addressed, studies undertaken, etc. We do not expect transcripts or 
extensive documentation and thus do not expect these quarterly updates 
to unduly burden a project sponsor. Accordingly, we will add the 
following requirement as Sec. 157.22(e)(5): \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The existing Secs. 157.22(e)(5), (e)(6), and (e)(7) will be 
redesignated as Secs. 157.22(e)(6), (e)(7), and (e)(8).

    Every three months, the applicant shall file with the Commission 
a report summarizing the progress made in the pre-filing 
collaborative process, referencing the public file maintained by the 
applicant as provided in Sec. 157.22(e)(4) where additional 
information on that process can be obtained. Summaries or minutes of 
meetings held as part of the collaborative process may be used to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
satisfy this filing requirement.

    We expect that collaborative participants, when establishing a 
communications protocol to govern discussions, will routinely include 
provisions regarding the mechanics of documenting the progress of 
discussions, studies, decisions, etc., and of making this documentation 
of the collaboration accessible. We also expect that at the conclusion 
of the collaborative process, participants will decide what data 
gathered during the pre-filing process should be filed with the 
application and thereby be entered into the record of the proceeding.

[[Page 65755]]

Commission Decision to Approve a Request to Use the Collaborative 
Procedure

    In deciding whether to go forward with a proposed collaboration, or 
to resolve matters once a collaboration is underway, the rule directs 
participants to act by consensus, defined as ``a collective opinion; 
the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.'' \12\ Indicated 
Shippers believe this standard is too vague and is open to abuse. 
Indicated Shippers are concerned that the regulations do not provide 
for review of Commission decisions on requests to use the collaborative 
process, and speculate the Commission may approve a collaborative 
request despite strong objections from a minority of interested 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles, para. 31,080 at 
30,909.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indicated Shippers complain that the Commission's decision to 
permit a pre-filing collaboration is not subject to review, thus 
entities opposing a collaboration are without recourse.

Commission Response

    We stress that a pre-filing collaboration will not be permitted to 
commence unless we find that the weight of opinions expressed by a 
representative sample of interested entities favor going forward. Where 
support is insufficient, either because only a small number of affected 
entities endorse a pre-filing collaboration or because key players 
refuse to participate, we may decide pre-filing collaboration is 
unlikely to prove productive, and so deny the request.
    We see no need to provide for any review of a decision on a request 
to use the pre-filing collaborative procedure. A project sponsor that 
does not meet the criteria for a pre-filing collaboration under 
Sec. 157.22 of the regulations may nevertheless engage in pre-filing 
consultations. If a request to collaborate is approved despite an 
entity's objection, that entity's recourse can be to decline to 
participate in the collaboration. As noted, absence from a 
collaboration need not bar an entity from bringing any question, 
concern, or objection to the Commission's attention following filing of 
the application.

Entry Into an Ongoing Collaboration

    If an entity becomes aware of an ongoing collaboration and seeks to 
join in, the collaborative regulations do not prevent participation, 
but do require that latecomers not delay or disrupt the process and 
abide by any ground rules that have already been established.
    Indicated Shippers believe these constraints are inequitable 
because the latecomer may not have been aware of the collaboration due 
to defective notice on the part of the applicant and because there is 
no assurance that the protocol governing the collaboration will be 
sufficient to allow the latecomer to participate meaningfully. Further, 
Indicated Shippers anticipate that latecomers to an ongoing 
collaboration could be precluded from revisiting old or raising new 
issues, which may result in a filed application that fails to fully 
address all aspects of a proposed project.

Commission Response

    The notification procedures in place, as modified herein, should 
prove sufficient to ensure all potentially interested entities are 
informed of the applicant's intent to undertake a pre-filing procedure, 
the applicant's request to the Commission to do so, Commission approval 
of the request, the time and place of the initial information 
meeting(s), and the expected scope of the collaboration.
    If, during the course of an ongoing collaboration, the character of 
the originally proposed project is altered such that previously 
uninformed entities are affected, we expect the prospective applicant 
to contact those entities to notify them of the ongoing collaboration 
and invite them to participate. For example, if a new alternative 
routing is selected, the applicant should promptly contact landowners 
along the alternative route and invite them to join in the ongoing 
collaboration.
    We expect adherence to a communications protocol, the project 
sponsor's maintenance of public files, and periodic reporting on a 
collaboration's progress to the Commission, will permit an entity 
entering an ongoing collaboration to be promptly brought up to date. 
Where a late-entering entity believes its concerns have been 
inadequately addressed despite its participation in the collaboration, 
that entity may so state in comments submitted to the Commission after 
an application is filed. Such comments will help ensure a full and 
complete record is before the Commission as it evaluates a proposed 
project.

Issues Open to Discussion in a Pre-filing Collaboration

    Indicated Shippers renew their request to limit the scope of a pre-
filing collaboration to environmental issues. Indicated Shippers 
contend that because environmental issues are ``confined to a well-
defined geographic area,'' consideration in a pre-filing collaboration 
is a manageable undertaking that may ``constitute a meaningful 
improvement'' in the certification process.\13\ However, because non-
environmental issues may not be neatly bounded, Indicated Shippers are 
concerned that pre-filing discussion of such issues may be impractical, 
as there may be large numbers of potentially interested entities 
involved, including an applicant's competitors. Indicated Shippers 
assert inclusion of non-environmental issues will create uncertainty 
and lead to discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Indicated Shippers' Request for Rehearing at 4 and 11 (Oct. 
15, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Response

    In theory, participants in a pre-filing collaboration can take up 
and reach a comprehensive accord on all relevant issues; in practice, 
this will not be the case with every collaboration. Nevertheless, we 
expect applications to be more complete and less contentious following 
pre-filing collaborations. Additionally, we expect the post-filing NEPA 
process may be completed in less time than would be the case absent the 
pre-filing collaboration. The regulations are intended to permit the 
project sponsor and participants to trim the topics to be addressed to 
the interests of the collaborative group; we do not expect a 
collaboration to cover issues that are unlikely to be productively 
discussed. However, just as we see no point in insisting on a 
collaborative agenda that is all-inclusive, we see no point in 
precluding particular topics from discussion if the participants opt to 
pursue them.
    We recognize that prospects may be dim for a collaboration to reach 
accord on certain non-environmental issues. Nevertheless, if the 
project sponsor and participants anticipate that pre-filing 
consideration of such issues may advance the preparation of an 
application, we see no reason to bar their consideration as part of the 
pre-filing collaborative process. An entity that is not at the 
collaborative table during discussions concerning such an issue, or 
that objects to the collaborative participants' treatment of the issue, 
is not precluded from commenting on the issue following the filing of 
the application. The Commission will thoroughly review all comments and 
the entire evidentiary record prior to taking any action on the 
application. Thus, we are not persuaded that the pre-filing 
consideration of non-environmental

[[Page 65756]]

issues by a collaborative group will result in discrimination to any 
entity.

Participation of Commission Staff in a Collaborative Procedure

    In the final rule we stated that Commission staff involved in a 
pre-filing collaboration may participate in post-filing review of an 
application. Indicated Shippers renew their objection to this 
possibility, contending such involvement is contrary to prohibitions 
against ex parte communication.

Commission Response

    The Commission's ex parte regulations are intended to avoid any 
prejudice, real or apparent, that might result to a party in a 
contested, on-the-record proceeding before the Commission were a party 
or ``interceder'' to communicate information regarding the merits to 
decision-making (advisory) staff without the knowledge of other 
parties.\14\ These regulations do not apply to a pre-filing 
collaboration because it does not constitute an on-the-record 
proceeding before the Commission. Such a proceeding only commences upon 
submission of an application to the Commission. The Commission's 
staff's role in a pre-filing collaboration, as described above, is 
limited to facilitating conversation and in assisting in initiating the 
NEPA review process; staff may, as they do now, provide general 
procedural, statutory, and regulatory guidance. However, Commission 
staff will neither make any determination regarding the merits of a 
prospective applicant's proposal nor endorse or reject any 
collaborative accords.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 5 U.S.C. 551-557 and 18 CFR 385.604 and 385.2201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indicated Shippers can make use of the communications protocol to 
address their concerns about private communications with Commission 
staff during the pre-filing process and to establish a degree of 
disclosure that is appropriate for communication between collaborative 
participants and Commission staff.
    In view of the above, we affirm our determination in the final rule 
that a staff member's participation in a pre-filing discussion need not 
disqualify that individual from serving in an advisory role in a 
proceeding on an application that is subsequently filed. We stress that 
staff representations in the pre-filing forum cannot in any way bind 
the Commission, because the Commission alone is responsible for making 
all final decisions on the application.

Information Collection Statement

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to approve 
certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.\15\ 
This order on rehearing clarifies the notice procedure described in 
Sec. 157.22(e)(1) of the regulations and specifies a time frame for the 
periodic reports described in Sec. 157.22(e)(4) of the regulations. The 
reporting burden imposed by the final rule was previously reviewed and 
approved by OMB and these minor modifications make no substantive or 
material change to the approved requirements. As noted in the final 
rule, due to the voluntary nature of a pre-filing process, no burdens 
will be imposed upon a project sponsor beyond those it elects to take 
upon itself. We will transmit to a copy of this order on rehearing to 
OMB for its information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 5 CFR Part 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Document Availability

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission also provides all interested persons 
an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via 
the Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.fed.us) and on 
FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m. Eastern time) as 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, 
DC 20426.
    From FERC's Home Page in the Internet, this information is 
available in both the Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) and 
RIMS.

--CIPS provide access to texts of formal documents issued by the 
Commission since November 14, 1994.
--CIPS can be accessed using the CIPS link or the Energy Information 
Online icon. The full text of this document is available on CIPS in 
ASCII and WordPerfect 8 format for viewing, printing, and/or 
downloading.
--RIMS contains images 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 from FERC's Home Page using the RIMS 
link or the Energy Information Online icon. Descriptions of documents 
back to November 16, 1981, are also available from RIMS-on-the-Web; 
requests for copies of these and other older documents should be 
submitted to the Public Reference Room.

    User assistance is available for RIMS, CIPS, and the FERC Website 
during normal business hours from our Help line at (202) 208-2222 (E-
mail to [email protected].) or the Public Reference at (202) 208-
1371 (E-Mail to [email protected]).
    During normal business hours, documents can also be viewed and/or 
printed in FERC's Public Reference Room, where RIMS, CIPS, and the FERC 
Website are available. User assistance is also available.
    For the reasons discussed in the body of this order, we deny in 
part and grant in part Indicated Shippers' request for rehearing of 
Order No. 608.

Effective Date

    Changes to Order No. 608 made in this order on rehearing will 
become effective on December 4, 2000.
    Prior to issuance of Order No. 608, the Commission determined, with 
the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that the rule was not a ``major rule'' as 
defined in Section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996.\16\ We affirm our prior determination, and find 
that the final rule, as clarified and modified herein, is not a major 
rule. This order on rehearing will be submitted to both houses of 
Congress, the General Accounting Office, and OMB for their information 
and records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and 
record keeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 157, 
Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND 
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER 
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

    1. The authority citation for Part 157 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.


    2. In Sec. 157.22, paragraph (e)(1) is revised; existing paragraphs 
(e)(5), (e)(6), and (e)(7) are redesignated as paragraphs (e)(6), 
(e)(7), and (e)(8),

[[Page 65757]]

respectively; and a new paragraph (e)(5) is added, to read as follows:


Sec. 157.22  Collaborative procedures for applications for certificates 
of public convenience and necessity and for orders permitting and 
approving abandonment.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) The Commission will publish notice of its authorization to use 
the pre-filing process in the Federal Register; the applicant will 
publish notice of the Commission's authorization to use the pre-filing 
process in a local newspaper of general circulation in the county or 
counties in which the proposed project is to be located. To the extent 
feasible, the applicants' notice will specify the time and place of the 
initial information meeting(s) and the scoping of environmental issues 
and will be sent to a mailing list approved by the Commission that 
includes the names and addresses of landowners affected by the project.
* * * * *
    (5) Every three months, the applicant shall file with the 
Commission a report summarizing the progress made in the pre-filing 
collaborative process, referencing the public file maintained by the 
applicant as provided in paragraph (e)(4), of this section where 
additional information on that process can be obtained. Summaries or 
minutes of meetings held as part of the collaborative process may be 
used to satisfy this filing requirement.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-28082 Filed 11-01-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P