[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 225 (Friday, November 23, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65659-65666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22799]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 375 and 385

[Docket No. RM07-16-000; Order No. 703]


Filing Via the Internet

Issued November 15, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission is revising its regulations to provide that all 
documents will be eligible for filing by means of the Commission's 
eFiling system, with exceptions to be posted by the Secretary of the 
Commission on the Commissions Web site.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective December 24, 
2007. Changes made by this rule to the Commission's eFiling system will 
be implemented at a later date, to be announced by the Secretary of the 
Commission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbur Miller, Office of General 
Counsel, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8953. 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. Background

    1. On July 23, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NOPR) seeking comments on proposed revisions to its 
regulations that will enable the implementation of the next version of 
its system for filing documents via the Internet, eFiling 7.0. Filing 
Via the Internet, 72 FR 42330 (July 23, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 
32,621 (2007). The NOPR proposed to allow the option of filing all 
documents in Commission proceedings through the eFiling interface 
except for specified exceptions. The NOPR also sought comments on the 
possibility of shifting its deadline for filings through the eFiling 
system from close of business to midnight, and of utilizing online 
forms to allow ``documentless'' interventions in all filings and quick 
comments in P

[[Page 65660]]

(Hydropower Project), PF (Pre-Filing NEPA activities for proposed gas 
pipelines), and CP (Certificates for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines) 
proceedings. Finally, the NOPR asked for input on a number of technical 
issues that will be covered in the instructions for eFiling that will 
be issued by the Secretary of the Commission. These issues also were 
the subject of a technical conference that took place on August 22, 
2007.
    2. This Final Rule adopts the NOPR's proposal to amend the 
Commission's regulations \1\ to provide that all documents filed with 
the Commission may be submitted through the eFiling interface except 
for documents specified by the Secretary. This reverses the existing 
presumption, as the current regulations allow eFiling only of documents 
specified by the Secretary. The changes we are implementing in this 
Final Rule mean that categories such as oversized documents and most 
confidential documents will be accepted via eFiling. At this time, the 
principal exceptions, as noted in the NOPR, will be tariffs, tariff 
revisions and rate change applications; some forms; \2\ and documents 
that are subject to protective orders. As stated in the NOPR, for the 
time being, the Secretary's instructions will specify that submitters 
file paper copies of oversized and some other documents \3\ in addition 
to the electronic documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rule 2003(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2003(c).
    \2\ The following will continue to be submitted through eForms: 
FERC Form No.1, FERC Form No. 2, FERC Form No. 2-A, FERC Form No. 3-
Q, FERC Form No. 6, FERC Form No. 6-Q, Form 60, Form 714, and 
Electric Quarterly Reports. FERC Form 1-F is currently not included 
in eForms, so it may be efiled. Open Access Transmission Tariff 
(OATT) filings may also be efiled.
    \3\ A list of examples of documents for which the Commission 
will require paper copies is contained in the Appendix to the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. This rulemaking will become effective 30 days after publication 
in the Federal Register, but implementation of eFiling 7.0 will occur 
at a later date. The Secretary will announce the implementation of the 
upgrade in advance and will also at that time post filing instructions, 
as discussed below.
    4. This Final Rule implements the proposals, discussed in the NOPR, 
to institute online forms that would permit optional ``documentless'' 
intervention in all proceedings and ``quick comments'' in P (Hydropower 
Project), PF (Pre-Filing NEPA activities for proposed gas pipelines), 
and CP (Certificates for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines) proceedings. 
It should be noted that the quick comment and documentless intervention 
features will not require revisions to the Commission's regulations. We 
are not at this time implementing the proposal to move the filing 
deadline to midnight.
    5. Prior to the release of eFiling 7.0, the Secretary will issue 
instructions specifying formats and other technical parameters, as well 
as instances in which paper copies will be required. As noted in the 
NOPR, the Commission has already issued instructions specifying 
acceptable file formats for filings submitted on CD-ROM, DVD and other 
electronic media. These can be found at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp. In addition, in some cases 
Commission staff has issued instructions applying to specific types of 
filings. Where there are no specifications for a particular type of 
filing, users must follow the Secretary's instructions. The Commission 
received useful input on formatting issues both in the comments on the 
NOPR and in the technical conference. Users of eFiling should bear in 
mind that changes will inevitably take place as staff implements 
improvements and technology changes. Staff also receives feedback from 
users on an informal basis, which it uses to continue improving the 
system.
    6. At this time, the eFiling system will accept documents in their 
native formats. This will include both text or word processing 
documents, and other more specialized documents such as spreadsheets 
and maps. It will also accept text documents in searchable formats, 
including scanned documents that have been saved in searchable form. As 
noted above, the Secretary has issued a list of acceptable formats for 
CD-ROM, DVD and other electronic media, available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp. This same list 
will serve as the list of acceptable formats for eFiling 7.0. 
Submitters will be able to choose a suitable format from that list 
unless they are instructed otherwise in specific instances by 
regulation or by direction from Commission staff. Audio and video files 
will be accepted only in waveform audio format (.wav) for audio content 
and either audio-video interleave (.avi) or quicktime (.mov) files for 
video content, except where submitters are specifically instructed 
otherwise.
    7. The NOPR requested comments on the possibility of discontinuing 
the practice of posting PDF versions of filings in eLibrary that are 
created by Commission staff. For the time being, we will continue this 
practice. As discussed in the NOPR, however, users should note that PDF 
conversions are not always accurate or complete and should not be 
considered authoritative. Some documents are not susceptible to 
conversion at all. The PDF versions will be provided on a ``best 
efforts'' basis, so in some cases no PDF version may appear in 
eLibrary, or there may only be a placeholder file indicating that a PDF 
version could not be generated.
    8. Finally, the NOPR requested comments on whether the Secretary 
should require documents created electronically by the filer using word 
processing software be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF 
format rather than an unsearchable, scanned format. The Secretary's 
instructions will adopt this proposal. Scanned, non-searchable formats 
may be used only for documents that cannot, as a practical matter, be 
put into searchable formats.

II. Discussion

A. Expansion of eFiling

    9. As stated above, upon implementation of eFiling 7.0 the 
Commission will accept the electronic filing of all documents through 
the eFiling interface except for tariff filings, some forms \4\ and 
documents submitted under protective orders. The comments received by 
the Commission on the expansion of eFiling were uniformly favorable. 
Some commenters urged us to continue to expand the range of submissions 
acceptable through eFiling. In some cases, commenters \5\ urged us to 
accept tariff filings through the eFiling gateway, either on a 
permanent basis or on a temporary basis pending the institution of 
eTariff, which is the subject of a separate proceeding.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Note 2 infra.
    \5\ Edison Electric Institute (EEI), pp. 4-6; Arizona Public 
Service Company (APSC), p. 3; Nevada Power Company & Sierra Pacific 
Power Company (Nevada/Sierra), p. 3.
    \6\ Electronic Tariff Filings, Docket No. RM01-5-000, FERC 
Stats. and Regs. ] 35,551 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. We intend, as far as practicable, to continue decreasing our 
reliance on paper documents and to continue to upgrade eFiling 
capabilities in furtherance of the Commission's responsibilities under 
the Government Paperwork Elimination Act.\7\ At this time, however, the 
Commission will not accept tariff filings through the eFiling system. 
The eTariff rulemaking will remain the forum for addressing the 
electronic submission of tariff filings with tariff material. However, 
eFiling may be used to file material in tariff proceedings provided the 
filing does not contain tariff material. Examples include testimony 
filed as part of the hearing, Schedules G-1 through G-6,\8\ and updated 
statements such as

[[Page 65661]]

required by section 154.311 of the Commission's regulations.\9\ Also, 
Natural Gas Act Section 7 certificate filings with pro forma tariff 
sheets may be filed under this version of eFiling 7.0.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Pub. L. No. 105-277, Sec.  1704, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-750 
(1998).
    \8\ 18 CFR 154.313(j)(2) (2007).
    \9\ 18 CFR 154.311 (2007).
    \10\ Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), 
Appendix A, pp. 2 and 3, requests clarification of which part of 
certificate and tariff filings would be filed utilizing eFiling 7.0, 
and which part would be filed under the eTariff procedures. The 
eTariff requirements are not complete, thus it is premature to 
speculate as to what the electronic filing process for filings with 
tariffs will be. At this time, however, tariff filings cannot be 
split between electronic and paper filings. No part of a tariff 
filing will be accepted through eFiling 7.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Some commenters \11\ expressed caution about the submission of 
confidential documents, including a desire for more detail about that 
function. There was some concern about the ability to alter a 
document's security designation after it is filed.\12\ Some commenters 
also requested clarification on the procedures for filing protected 
documents,\13\ including the procedures for documents submitted 
together with requests for protective orders.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EEI, pp. 6-7; Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. and Enbridge, 
Inc. (Enbridge), pp. 3-5; Midwest Independent Transmission System 
Operator, Inc. (MISO), pp. 2-3; Southern California Edison Company 
(SoCal), pp. 2-3; Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company 
(Williston Basin), p. 6.
    \12\ American Rivers, pp. 1-2.
    \13\ INGAA, p. 3; MISO, pp. 2-3; Williston Basin, pp. 6-7.
    \14\ EEI, pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The anticipated procedure for the submission of confidential 
documents is as follows: When a user accesses the File Upload screen, 
the user will see tabs for three submission categories: Public, CEII 
and Privileged. The files uploaded to each of these tabs will 
automatically receive an accession number and be marked as Public, CEII 
or Privileged. The entire eFiling session will be secured so the 
documents during transmission will be encrypted. The following system 
checks will be performed during the eFiling process:
     The file size will be checked to ensure the size is not 
greater than 50MB.
     The file format will be checked to ensure it is a format 
that FERC can support. The acceptable file format list can be found at 
the following location: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp.
     Files will be checked for viruses.
     The file name will be checked to ensure it is less than 60 
characters including the period, spaces, and file extension (.doc, 
.xls, .pps, etc.).
    If for any reason, the files that have been uploaded fail to pass 
any one of the checks above, a message will be displayed identifying 
the issue and the user will not be permitted to proceed with the filing 
process.
    13. It will not be possible for a user, through eFiling, to change 
the designation of a file as public, privileged, or CEII after 
submission of the document. This will only be possible before 
submission, in case the user changes her mind or finds a mistake. Any 
subsequent redesignation request will have to be made by calling FERC 
Online Support or the eFiling Help Line. Users should continue to 
follow the Commission's regulations governing submission of 
confidential documents.\15\ If a user needs to submit both a redacted 
and a privileged form of a document, the latter should be submitted as 
privileged and the former as public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 18 CFR 388.112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In some instances, a document may contain portions that are 
privileged and other portions that constitute CEII. In such an 
instance, the CEII portions would be filed as CEII and the privileged 
portions would be filed separately and designated as privileged. If a 
portion of a document was both privileged and CEII, it would be filed 
as privileged because that is the higher security classification.
    15. Some parties request the ability to file privileged or CEII 
material in paper-only format. The Commission notes that this Final 
Rule only provides filers the option to use eFiling to make filings 
with the Commission. Filers who do not wish to use eFiling need not do 
so. To the extent that these commenters are requesting that the 
Commission permit filers to split their filings into an electronic 
component and a paper component, the Commission rejects this request. 
The Commission does not want to assume the responsibility of finding 
the paper and electronic components of a single filing and reassembling 
those components for uploading into eLibrary or internal distribution 
and analysis. Dual format filings create significant potential for 
errors and delays.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission notes that filers can make separate, free-
standing, paper-only and electronic only filings in the same 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. To clarify, materials subject to protective orders should not 
be eFiled because the Secretary's office does not put protected 
material into eLibrary, as opposed to material filed pursuant to 
Section 388.112 of the Commission's regulations. The same restriction 
applies to confidential materials filed with a request for a protective 
order.

B. Paper Copies

    17. The NOPR proposed to continue to require paper copies of 
filings submitted electronically through eFiling 7.0, for instance, 
oversized documents such as maps, diagrams and drawings. The NOPR 
explained that due to the size of standard monitors and other hardware 
and software limitations, it was impractical at this time for the 
Commission to review certain documents in electronic form. The NOPR 
also raised the possibility of requiring paper copies for documents 
over a certain length, such as 500 pages. Some commenters requested 
that ``oversized documents'' or ``large documents'' be defined as those 
documents larger than 8.5'' x 11'',\17\ 8.5'' x 14'',\18\ or 8.5'' x 
17''.\19\ Others asked for further clarifications, such as whether the 
paper requirement applies only to the oversized portions of documents 
that also have standard dimensions.\20\ Commenters were not in favor of 
requiring paper copies of long documents.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Williston Basin, p. 7.
    \18\ Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), p. 4.
    \19\ INGAA, p. 5.
    \20\ MISO, p. 3. PG&E, p. 3, asked for clarification of the 
timeframe and dimensions, while INGAA, pp. 4-5, asked that the paper 
copies be due after an accession number is assigned. SoCal, pp. 3-4, 
urged that eFiling not be required where paper copies are submitted. 
This will necessarily be the case, because the Commission is not at 
this time making eFiling mandatory.
    \21\ INGAA, pp. 5-6; SoCal, p. 3; Nevada/Sierra, p. 5; PG&E, pp. 
4-5; Williston Basin, pp. 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The Secretary's instructions will require paper copies in a 
specified number of documents larger than 11'' x 17''. This is a 
standard dimension for ``oversized'' documents. If a document contains 
both oversized and standard dimensions, only the former need be filed 
on paper. Paper copies of long documents, i.e., documents longer than a 
specified number of pages, will not be required. Further specifics will 
be contained in the instructions to be issued by the Secretary. Over 
time, as we upgrade our capabilities, we expect to be able to reduce 
the necessity of filing paper copies.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See comments of Nevada/Sierra, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. In response to the comments about the timing of submission of 
paper copies, we wish to state clearly the roles played by the paper 
and electronic copies. The revisions made in this Final Rule, in 18 CFR 
385.2003(c)(1), will provide that ``filing via the Internet is in lieu 
of other methods of filing.'' Thus, the electronic copy will be the 
``filed'' copy. This will be the copy to which the Commission looks for 
matters such as determining timeliness. Paper copies will be required 
in some instances because they are currently necessary for FERC staff 
to carry out its functions. The Secretary's instructions will specify 
the

[[Page 65662]]

time by which the paper copies must be submitted.

C. File Formats

    20. The NOPR raised the possibility of discontinuing our practice 
of creating PDF versions of documents in eLibrary.\23\ In conjunction 
with this possibility, the NOPR requested comments on several 
alternative requirements for file formats of documents submitted 
through eFiling. The three alternatives noted were: Requiring that all 
word processing filings be made in open file formats, such as text, 
html, rtf, or possibly PDF; permitting filings in open file formats as 
well as in certain Microsoft Office formats; and requiring that 
documents created with proprietary software be filed in the proprietary 
software along with an open source format. The NOPR also discussed the 
possibility of prohibiting the practice of filing non-searchable, 
scanned versions of documents created in native formats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Some commenters referred to FERC-created Text documents as 
well as PDF documents. Users should note that FERC creates Text 
versions only of Commission issuances. It does not create such 
versions of documents submitted through eFiling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Generally speaking, commenters opposed any requirement that 
documents be filed in more than one format.\24\ Some commenters favored 
retention of FERC-created PDFs \25\ or otherwise expressed a preference 
for some sort of open file format to maximize accessibility of 
documents to the public.\26\ Preferences between native and converted 
formats varied. Some commenters favored prohibiting the practice of 
scanning documents and filing them in non-searchable formats.\27\ Some 
noted that data-oriented documents such as spreadsheets lose much of 
their utility if not filed in their native formats.\28\ Others 
expressed a preference for filing scanned, non-searchable documents, in 
PDF format, in some cases out of concern that the documents could be 
manipulated.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ American Gas Association (AGA), p. 1 (word processing 
documents); EEI, pp. 7-8; FirstEnergy Companies (FirstEnergy), pp. 
6-7; Nevada/Sierra, pp. 6-7; SoCal, p. 4; Williston Basin, pp. 8-9; 
INGAA, p. 8; Enbridge, pp. 7-8.
    \25\ AGA, pp. 5-6; EEI, pp. 7-9; Bonneville Power Administration 
(Bonneville), p. 2; PG&E, pp. 5-6; American Rivers, pp. 2-3; U.S. 
Department of the Interior (Interior), p. 1; INGAA, p. 7; Nevada/
Sierra, p. 6.
    \26\ American Rivers, pp. 3-4.
    \27\ AGA, p. 5; American Rivers, p. 4; Nevada/Sierra, p. 7; 
MISO, p. 4; SoCal, p. 4; EEI, p. 8.
    \28\ American Rivers, pp. 3-4.
    \29\ PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), p. 2; MISO, p. 4; 
Interior, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Based on the comments received, we will continue to create PDF 
versions of submitted documents in eLibrary on a ``best efforts'' 
basis. This practice assures that users who may lack specific 
proprietary software will be able to access documents most of the time. 
As noted above, however, some documents cannot be converted to PDF 
successfully and thus some conversions will not be entirely accurate or 
complete. The FERC-created PDFs should not be considered authoritative. 
Persons submitting documents through eFiling will have the option of 
filing in any format listed as acceptable by the Secretary.
    23. The Secretary's instructions will require PDF files that are 
submitted to be produced in a manner that retains the ability to search 
the document (``print-to-PDF''), except in cases where it is 
impracticable for the filer to do otherwise. This is often the case 
with exhibits, for example. The search feature provides the Commission 
and the public access to tools that permit faster searches, increased 
accuracy, and enhanced analytical and processing capabilities that 
modern software technology provides.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Commission notes that PG&E's PDF posting is an 
excellent example of such a document: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/doc_info.asp?document_id=13543136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. Submission of text documents will be permissible in native or 
in searchable format. We will not require submission of text documents 
in both native and open formats. In most cases, submission of text 
documents in their native formats is the simplest option. Not all users 
possess the same degree of technical knowledge. Requiring conversion of 
documents to open formats might serve as a barrier to the use of the 
eFiling system for some users, a possibility that runs counter to the 
underlying purpose of the system.
    25. Submission of spreadsheets in native format will be required. 
Some commenters expressed concern that spreadsheets in native format 
may contain formulas and other data that are confidential.\31\ One 
commenter argues further that formula and data may contain proprietary 
information, and that a native format requirement may contravene the 
Interstate Commerce Act prohibition against disclosing individual 
shipper information. That commenter believes the requirement to provide 
formulas may lead to less publicly available data.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ MISO, p. 4; PJM Interconnection, p. 3; Enbridge, p. 8.
    \32\ 32 Enbridge, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. The Commission addressed these issues before. In Order No. 582, 
the Commission required pipelines filing rate cases pursuant to Part 
154 of the Commission's regulations to file data and allocation and 
rate design formulas in electronic formats. The Commission found that 
formulas facilitate an understanding of the applicant's positions and 
reduce the requirement for subsequent data requests. The Commission 
went on to note that the requirement was not to submit the whole rate 
case in spreadsheet format.\33\ The same will be true here. The 
Commission is simply providing a different means by which data 
requirements may be submitted, not changing the requirements 
themselves. A filer still may request confidential treatment. In such 
cases, the data sets and spreadsheets should be submitted in both 
privileged, unredacted form and in public, redacted form, pursuant to 
18 CFR 388.112.\34\ Depending on the application and the information 
being redacted, a redaction might be accomplished by filing a print to 
PDF or a scanned, searchable document, by converting a spreadsheet to 
values-only form, or by some other means. It would be up to the filer 
to choose an appropriate means of protecting its information in 
requesting confidential treatment under the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Filing and Reporting Requirements for Interstate Natural, 
Gas Company Rate Schedules and Tariffs, Order No. 582, FERC Stats. 
and Regs., ] 31,025, p. 31,435 (1995).
    \34\ See Order No. 582 at pp. 31,412-413, 31,435.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. We do not agree with the concerns that documents may be 
altered. There is no reason to believe that users will be able to 
compromise the Commission's system and alter files in eLibrary. 
Furthermore, if a user downloads a document from eLibrary and alters it 
for the user's own purposes, the authoritative document will remain in 
eLibrary to refute the alteration. We also do not believe that the 
desire to include a scanned signature is sufficient to outweigh the 
greater usefulness of searchable documents. As stated in the NOPR, the 
Commission's regulations provide for electronic signatures, so an image 
of a signature is not necessary for purposes of verification. For 
submitters who still see a need for an image of a handwritten 
signature, we note that it is possible to insert an image into a Word 
document. Moreover, filers that previously scanned documents into PDF 
format can produce a print-to-PDF searchable document and attach a 
single scanned signature page.

D. Quick Comment and Documentless Intervention

    28. The NOPR's proposal to implement online forms that would allow 
users to intervene in Commission proceedings without filing separate

[[Page 65663]]

documents and to submit comments easily in P (Hydropower Project), PF 
(Pre-Filing NEPA activities for proposed gas pipelines), and CP 
(Certificates for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines) proceedings drew 
support from some commenters \35\ and opposition from a smaller number. 
Some commenters objected to these features as unneeded.\36\ Some 
commenters expressed concern that there should be some provision for 
prompt service of interventions and comments submitted through the 
proposed online forms.\37\ One commenter requested that users 
submitting quick comments be required to provide mailing addresses and 
other information.\38\ Another suggested that the quick comment feature 
be extended to include electric matters and rulemakings.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ AGA, p. 4; American Rivers, pp. 4-5; Enbridge, p. 11; PG&E, 
pp. 7-8; Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC (Spectra) (quick comment 
only), p. 3; INGAA, pp. 9-10.
    \36\ FirstEnergy (quick comment only), pp. 3-5; Nevada/Sierra, 
pp. 7-8; EEI, pp. 14-16.
    \37\ EEI, p. 15; Enbridge, p. 11; SoCal, p. 5.
    \38\ INGAA, p. 10.
    \39\ PG&E, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Both features are sufficiently useful to justify their 
implementation. Documentless intervention, which will be available for 
all proceedings, will provide a simple method of intervening. The filer 
and text for all documentless interventions will be placed on eLibrary 
to permit challenges to intervention. We believe that the quick comment 
feature will make it easier for individuals who are not intimately 
familiar with Commission procedures to submit comments. This added 
convenience should primarily impact proceedings in which landowners may 
wish to comment, which is the reason we will restrict this feature to 
the proceedings listed in the preceding paragraph. We will consider 
expanding the availability of the feature in the future. We will not 
require quick comment submitters to include mailing addresses, a 
potential invasion of privacy that is not warranted. With respect to 
service of interventions and comments, these features will not involve 
changes to the Commission's regulations. Any regulations governing 
service will continue to apply. Furthermore, the use of eSubscription 
should suffice to ensure that interested persons receive prompt notice 
of these submissions.

E. Midnight Filing

    30. Comments were mixed on whether to regard documents submitted 
through eFiling as having been filed on a specific day as long as the 
document is received on or before midnight Eastern Standard Time of 
that day. While some commenters favored the change,\40\ a larger number 
either favored it only under specified conditions or opposed it 
altogether.\41\ The objections included the personal hardship of late-
hour filing, unfairness to paper filers, and the possibility that some 
filers would use the opportunity to file improper reply comments in 
response to comments filed earlier in the day. Some commenters 
suggested that if we moved the deadline, we should ensure that comments 
would not be visible to the public in eLibrary until the next day. 
Others were concerned that the eFiling system could be unavailable to a 
user facing a deadline after it was too late to make a paper filing. We 
also received suggestions that move the deadline to an intermediate 
hour,\42\ such as 8 p.m. Eastern Time, as an accommodation to users in 
Western time zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ APSC, p. 3; Bonneville, p. 2; Spectra, p. 4.
    \41\ AGA, pp. 6-8; INGAA, pp. 11-12; FirstEnergy, pp. 2-3; Mill, 
Balis & O'Neil, P.C., pp. 1-4; Phillip Marston, p. 1; PJM 
Interconnection, p. 3-4; PJM Transmission Owners, pp. 2-6; Nevada/
Sierra, p. 8; MISO, p. 5; Williston Basin, pp. 9-12; Enbridge, pp. 
11-13; EEI, pp. 16-17.
    \42\ PJM Transmission Owners, p. 6; SoCal, pp. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Based on the concerns raised in the comments, we will not at 
this time alter the filing deadline. It will remain at close of 
business, i.e., 5 p.m. Eastern Time.

F. Miscellaneous Comments

    32. On August 22, 2007, the Commission hosted a technical 
conference that discussed the proposed changes to electronic filing and 
electronic file and document format instructions that are associated 
with this proceeding. The conference was conducted in two sessions. 
Session 1 presented an overview of the electronic filing submission 
instructions that will apply universally. Session 2 was divided into 
sections that discussed information that is specific to each industry.
    33. We received some comments on various technical aspects of 
documents submitted through eFiling, many of which were discussed 
during the technical conference.\43\ These comments will be taken into 
account by Commission staff \44\ in developing and revising the filing 
instructions that the Secretary will issue. The instructions for 
eFiling are an ongoing process, as staff often receives feedback on the 
system from users, including comments received informally during 
outreach efforts that give users an introduction to various aspects of 
FERC Online.\45\ The delegated authority the Commission is giving the 
Secretary to make changes to the various requirements to make an 
electronic filing through the notice process will permit these 
instructions to be updated in a timely manner in response to user needs 
and changes in FERC's technological capabilities.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ PG&E, pp. 6-7; PJM, p. 3; EEI, pp. 11-14.
    \44\ The Appendix contains the comments on the draft document 
manual that was discussed at the technical conference, as well as 
the Commission's responses.
    \45\ One commenter, Enbridge, pp. 10-11, expressed concern about 
file naming conventions. Users should be aware that naming 
conventions will change with eFiling 7.0, a change that will be 
spelled out in the Secretary's instructions.
    \46\ Williston, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. INGAA proposes that the pipeline's Index of Customers report, 
already an electronic-only filing, be made through eFiling 7.0.\47\ The 
Commission agrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ INGAA, App. A, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. INGAA and PG&E \48\ request that the Commission hold additional 
technical conferences to review both the proposed instructions 
applicable to electronic documents in general and existing electronic 
document instructions, and software techniques that may assist filers 
in creating documents that satisfy the filers' objectives. Further 
conferences should not be necessary. The Secretary engages in outreach 
with the public to review new or existing electronic document or 
submission instructions. This outreach often generates feedback that 
Commission staff takes into account in managing the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ INGAA, pp. 2-3, App. A, pp. 4-8; PG&E, pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Some commenters made suggestions for improvements in the 
Commission's online systems. These included requests that we take steps 
to ensure that each entity in the eRegistration system has only one 
registration \49\ and that we institute an automated service feature 
for service among participants.\50\ The problem of multiple 
registrations, specifically with entities being registered more than 
once under slightly different names, is an issue that we hope to 
address in the future. Similarly, an automated service feature would 
add value for users and we hope to be able to institute such a feature 
as we upgrade the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Enbridge, pp. 6-7.
    \50\ EEI, pp. 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    37. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB 
to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by 
agency rule.\51\ This Final Rule does not contain any

[[Page 65664]]

information collection requirements and compliance with the OMB 
regulations is thus not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Environmental Analysis

    38. 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.\52\ 
Issuance of this Final Rule does not represent a major federal action 
having a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human 
environment under the Commission's regulations implementing the 
National Environmental Policy Act. Part 380 of the Commission's 
regulations lists exemptions to the requirement to draft an 
Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement. Included is 
an exemption for procedural, ministerial or internal administrative 
actions.\53\ This rulemaking is exempt under that provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National 
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & 
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \53\ 18 CFR 380.4(1) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    39. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \54\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This Final Rule concerns procedural matters and is expected to increase 
the ease and convenience of filing. The Commission certifies that it 
will not have a significant economic impact upon participants in 
Commission proceedings. An analysis under the RFA is not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    40. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the 
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and 
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours 
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    41. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this 
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is 
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, 
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type 
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in 
the docket number field.
    42. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's 
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or e-mail at 
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 
[email protected].

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    43. These revisions are effective December 24, 2007. Changes made 
by this Final Rule to the Commission's eFiling system will be 
implemented at a later date to be announced by the Secretary.
    44. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review 
of Final Rules do not apply to this Final Rule because the rule 
concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantially 
affect the rights of non-agency parties.

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 375

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Seals and insignia, 
Sunshine Act.

18 CFR Part 385

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

    By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Parts 375 and 
385, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 375--THE COMMISSION

0
1. The authority citation for part 375 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 
U.S.C. 791-825r, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16451-16463.


0
2. Section 375.302 is amended by revising paragraph (z) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  375.302  Delegations to the Secretary.

* * * * *
    (z) Issue instructions pertaining to allowable electronic file and 
document formats, the filing of complex documents, whether paper copies 
are required, and procedural guidelines for submissions via the 
Internet, on electronic media or via other electronic means.

PART 385--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
3. 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-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701; 
42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. 
U.S.C. 1-85 (1988).


0
4. Section 385.2001 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  385.2001  Filings (Rule 2001).

    (a) Filings with the Commission.
    (1) * * *
    (iii) By filing via the Internet pursuant to Rule 2003 through the 
links provided at http://www.ferc.gov.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 385.2003 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  385.2003  Specifications (Rule 2003).

* * * * *
    (c) Filing via the Internet. (1) All documents filed under this 
Chapter may be filed via the Internet except those listed by the 
Secretary. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Chapter, 
filing via the Internet is in lieu of other methods of filing. Internet 
filings must be made in accordance with instructions issued by the 
Secretary and made available online at http://www.ferc.gov. Provisions 
of this chapter or directions from the Commission containing 
requirements as to the content and format of specific types of filings 
remain applicable.
    (2) The Secretary will make available on the Commission's Web site 
a list of document types that may not be filed via the Internet, as 
well as instructions pertaining to allowable electronic file and 
document formats, the filing of complex documents, whether paper copies 
are required, and procedural guidelines.
* * * * *

    Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix

[[Page 65665]]



                                                               Comments on Document Manual
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       No.                Commenter                  Manual ]                           Comment                                  Response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  EEI, p. 12 INGAA, App.  4.B and 4.E.c..............  Consistent with Staff's comments at the  The Commission agrees with regard to
                    A, p. 5.                                             technical conference, the instructions   the general instructions. However, to
                                                                         should be read as not requiring, but     the extent that there are regulations
                                                                         only encouraging, the use of automatic   that require table of contents in a
                                                                         table of contents and booking marking    document, then these software features
                                                                         functions, and that not using these      should be used.
                                                                         features will not result in rejection
                                                                         of the filing.
2................  EEI, p. 12............  4.C........................  EEI requests clarification that          The Commission clarifies that the
                                                                         spreadsheets do not need to be           instruction is written broadly. EEI's
                                                                         submitted in native file format if no    proposal could be implemented in a
                                                                         formulas are included.                   manner that could inhibit the ability
                                                                                                                  to view and analyze the data. The
                                                                                                                  Commission will permit such
                                                                                                                  submissions, but will monitor the
                                                                                                                  manner in which filers use this
                                                                                                                  flexibility.
3................  EEI, p. 12............  4.D........................  This instruction should be corrected to  EEI is correct.
                                                                         include both spreadsheets and text
                                                                         files in the list of exceptions, as
                                                                         they are covered by other
                                                                         instructions.
4................  INGAA, App. A, p. 6...  4.E........................  Clarify that it is acceptable to use     The Adobe ``Document/Insert'' function
                                                                         the ``Insert'' feature of PDF            is acceptable.
                                                                         applications during the creation of an
                                                                         electronic file.
5................  EEI, p. 13............  5..........................  There is no need to include a            The Commission clarifies that the term
                                                                         transmittal letter and, indeed, it       ``Transmittal Letter'' as used in the
                                                                         should be discouraged, when a single     instructions is solely for the purpose
                                                                         document filing is made. Further, the    of the eFiling software to identify
                                                                         Commission should encourage the use of   the requisite lead public document for
                                                                         a single electronic document file and    filings consisting of several
                                                                         require the use of the label             documents. It does not have the same
                                                                         ``Transmittal Letter'' only when         definition as used in several sections
                                                                         multiple and separate electronic         of the Commission regulations. The
                                                                         documents are filed.                     contents of the ``Transmittal Letter''
                                                                                                                  electronic file can go beyond the
                                                                                                                  content requirements of a transmittal
                                                                                                                  letter as provided for in the
                                                                                                                  regulations.
6................  Enbridge, pp. 10-11...  5-10.......................  The Commission should clarify the        The example provided by Enbridge is
                                                                         effect that the file naming              related to the Index of Customers.
                                                                         conventions will have on existing file   Consistent with finding that the Index
                                                                         naming conventions.                      of Customers may be eFiled, the
                                                                                                                  Secretary will modify the acceptable
                                                                                                                  electronic file list.
7................  EEI, p. 13............  6..........................  The word ``tariff'' should be removed    It will be corrected.
                                                                         from the instruction.
8................  Enbridge, p. 10;        6..........................  The proposed 60 character limit needs    The Secretary will update other eFiling
                    INGAA, App. A, p. 6.                                 to be reflected in other eFiling         documentation to reflect this and
                                                                         documents, and the Commission should     other changes.
                                                                         clarify whether characters other than
                                                                         alpha-numeric are permitted in file
                                                                         names.
9................  EEI, p. 13............  6 and 8....................  The DOS file name character limit        No change is necessary.
                                                                         should be followed only by persons
                                                                         using DOS. Otherwise, more user-
                                                                         friendly names should be used.
10...............  EEI, p. 13............  11 and 14..................  The instructions should be modified to   There are hundreds of different types
                                                                         reflect the format requirements of       of documents filed with the
                                                                         Sec.   385.2003. If the intent is to     Commission. The instructions are meant
                                                                         relax these regulations, then the        to be flexible and not prescriptive
                                                                         regulations should be rewritten. If      for all possible documents. The
                                                                         there are any documents to which Sec.    Commission will monitor how filers'
                                                                          385.2003 does not apply, the            documents appear and their utility. If
                                                                         instructions should note them.           changes to either the instructions or
                                                                                                                  regulations are necessary, either the
                                                                                                                  Secretary or the Commission will
                                                                                                                  propose the necessary modifications.
11...............  EEI, p. 14............  12.........................  Instruction should note that it does     The Commission clarifies that the
                                                                         not apply to text filings, nor           required information should be shown
                                                                         testimony or exhibits where the ALJ      at least once at the beginning of
                                                                         typically dictates header format.        every document. Readers should not
                                                                                                                  have to rely on the Commission's
                                                                                                                  eLibrary to determine the source of
                                                                                                                  the document. ALJs may impose
                                                                                                                  additional requirements.
12...............  EEI, p. 14............  12.........................  The use of ``et al.'' should be          The Commission so clarifies.
                                                                         permitted with the company name.

[[Page 65666]]

 
13...............  Enbridge, p. 10.......  12.........................  With regard to the location of data in   See item 11 above.
                                                                         the headers and footers, clarify that
                                                                         if there is no specific instruction
                                                                         for the data's location, it may be
                                                                         placed in any location in the header.
14...............  Enbridge, p. 10;        13.........................  Clarify the meaning of ``hard-keyed''    Most native format data files and some
                    INGAA, App. A, pp. 7-                                headers or footers in tab-delimited or   spreadsheet files should not have hard-
                    8.                                                   native format data files, and whether    keyed headers or footers, as they
                                                                         this requirement is applicable to        disrupt the analysis and manipulation
                                                                         headers and footers created by text      of the contents. The instruction is
                                                                         programs such as Word.                   not relevant for text files, where the
                                                                                                                  word processor normally manages
                                                                                                                  headers and footers separate from the
                                                                                                                  text content.
15...............  EEI, p. 14 PJM, p. 3..  17.........................  EEI notes that the last sentence is in   EEI is correct, the last sentence
                                                                         error and should be deleted; whereas     should be struck. This moots PJM's
                                                                         PJM is concerned about the               concern.
                                                                         implications this instruction may have
                                                                         with regard to access to its internal
                                                                         data.
16...............  EEI, p. 14 INGAA, App.  28.d.......................  Clarify the use and appearance of        The Commission clarifies that parties
                    A, p. 5-6.                                           hyperlinks in an electronic document,    may not use hyperlinks as a means to
                                                                         and whether their use will result in a   include items as part of the record
                                                                         rejection of the filing.                 they intend to rely upon. Hyperlinks
                                                                                                                  may be used as part of citations, and
                                                                                                                  word processor conversions into
                                                                                                                  hyperlinks were not the focus of this
                                                                                                                  instruction.
17...............  INGAA, App. A, p. 3...  passim.....................  INGAA notes that the Commission's Part   While beyond the scope of this
                                                                         154 electronic document instructions     proceeding, INGAA should contact the
                                                                         date from 1977[sic]. INGAA requests      Secretary with a list of suggested
                                                                         that those instructions be updated to    changes and procedures.
                                                                         reflect some of the flexibility
                                                                         offered by the new general
                                                                         instructions for electronic documents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E7-22799 Filed 11-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P