Electronic Tariff Filings, 57515-57538 [E8-22500]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57515-57538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22500]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

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

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


Electronic Tariff Filings

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
H. Keith Pierce (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market 
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8525, Keith.Pierce@ferc.gov.
Anthony Barracchini (IT Information), Office of the Executive Director, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8940, Anthony.Barracchini@ferc.gov.
Andre Goodson (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8560, Andre.Goodson@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

[[Page 57516]]

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


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

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

I. Background

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

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

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

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

II. Discussion

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

[[Page 57517]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 57518]]

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

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

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

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

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

A. Electronic Filing Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 57519]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 57520]]

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

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

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

B. Tariff Filing Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 57521]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 57522]]

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

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

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

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