RM21-18 Final Rule (Published)

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
§ 314.5

Effective date.

Sections 314.4(a), (b)(1), (c)(1) through
(8), (d)(2), (e), (f)(3), (h), and (i) are
effective as of June 9, 2023.
By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
Note: the following statement will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Concurring Statement of Commissioner
Christine S. Wilson
The Safeguards Rule requires
financial institutions to develop,
implement, and maintain a
comprehensive information security
program to protect customer
information.1 In 2021, the Commission
updated the Safeguards Rule to add
several prescriptive requirements that
necessitate significant investment to
effectively implement.2 I voted against
the revisions to the rule, in part, because
I feared the new obligations would
inhibit flexibility and impose
substantial costs, especially on small
businesses.3 Despite assurances that
financial institutions were already
implementing many of the requirements
of the amended rule or had
sophisticated compliance programs that
could easily adopt and pivot to address
new obligations, I was concerned that
the Commission did not understand
fully the economic impact of the
proposed changes. It has become clear
that the Commission may have
underestimated the burdens imposed by
the rule revisions.
While I continue to note my concerns
about the revisions to the recently
amended Safeguards Rule, I support
extending the effective date. Labor
shortages of qualified personnel have
hampered efforts by companies to
implement information security
programs. Some estimates place the

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

1 16

CFR part 314.
2 The amended Rule was published in the Federal
Register on December 9, 2021. 86 FR 70272 (Dec.
9, 2021). As I noted at the time of the final rule’s
publication, I appreciated Staff’s diligent work on
the Safeguards Rule and commitment to consider
input from all relevant parties. Staff’s continued
commitment to address the serious concerns of
parties impacted by the Safeguards Rule is laudable.
3 Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Noah
Joshua Phillips and Commissioner Christine S.
Wilson, Final Rule Amending the Gramm-LeachBliley Act’s Safeguards Rule (Oct. 27, 2021), https://
www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_
statements/1597994/joint_statement_of_
commissioners_phillips_and_wilson_in_the_
matter_of_regulatory_review_of_the_1.pdf;
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Noah Joshua
Phillips and Commissioner Christine S. Wilson,
Review of Safeguards Rule (Mar. 5, 2019), https://
www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_
statements/1466705/reg_review_of_safeguards_
rule_cmr_phillips_wilson_dissent.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:59 Nov 22, 2022

Jkt 259001

shortage of cybersecurity professionals
in the 500,000 range.4 Supply chain
issues also have led to delays in
obtaining necessary equipment for
upgrading systems. These factors are
outside the control of financial
institutions and have complicated
efforts by companies to meet the
requirements of the amended rule by
year end.
The revisions finalized in December
2021 did not merely codify basic
security practices of most financial
institutions. Rather, the modifications
imposed new onerous, misguided, and
complex obligations. Safeguarding
customer information is important. But
it is still unclear whether these
mandates will translate into a
significant reduction in data security
risks or offer other substantial consumer
benefits. Regardless of the rule’s effects,
companies should be given the time
necessary to correctly implement the
final rule’s burdensome requirements.
For these reasons, I support extending
the effective date until June 2023.
[FR Doc. 2022–25201 Filed 11–22–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Parts 154, 260, and 284
[Docket No. RM21–18–000; Order No. 884]

Revised Filing and Reporting
Requirements for Interstate Natural
Gas Company Rate Schedules and
Tariffs
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission issues this final
rule to require natural gas pipelines to
submit all supporting statements,
schedules and workpapers in native
format (e.g., Microsoft Excel) with all
links and formulas included when filing
a Natural Gas Act section 4 rate case.
DATES: This rule is effective December
23, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUMMARY:

4 Data gathered under a Commerce Department
grant indicates that there are over 500,000 unfilled
cybersecurity job openings. The research indicates
that nationally, there are only enough cybersecurity
workers in the United States to fill 68% of the
cybersecurity jobs that employers demand. Cyber
Seek, Cybersecurity Supply/Demand Heat Map,
https://www.cyberseek.org/heatmap.html (last
visited Nov. 14, 2022).

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

71511

Tehseen Rana (Technical Information),
Office of Energy Market Regulation,
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
8639, Tehseen.Rana@ferc.gov
Caitlin Tweed (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502–8073,
Caitlin.Tweed@ferc.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. In this final rule, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) revises the filing and
reporting requirements for natural gas
pipelines filing a Natural Gas Act (NGA)
section 4 rate case.1 As discussed below,
we adopt the Commission’s proposal
pursuant to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) issued on May 19,
2022,2 to establish a rule to require
natural gas pipelines to submit all
supporting statements, schedules and
workpapers in native format (e.g.,
Microsoft Excel) with all links and
formulas included when filing an NGA
section 4 rate case.
I. Background
2. When a natural gas pipeline files
under NGA section 4 to change its rates,
the Commission requires the pipeline to
provide detailed support for all the
components of its cost of service.3
3. Commission regulations require
that natural gas pipelines filing general
NGA section 4 rate cases provide certain
statements (Statements A through P)
and associated schedules.4 In 1995, the
Commission issued its Filing and
Reporting Requirements for Interstate
Natural Gas Company Rate Schedules
and Tariffs (Order No. 582), stating that
Statements I, J and a portion of H
(containing state tax formulations) must
be received in spreadsheet format with
formulas included, as the data provided
in these statements and schedules are
essential to understanding a natural gas
pipeline’s position with regard to cost
allocation and rate design.5 The
Commission explained that although
these spreadsheets could be obtained
through discovery, that process is
burdensome and inhibits better1 15

U.S.C. 717c.
Filing & Reporting Requirements for
Interstate Nat. Gas Co. Rate Schedules & Tariffs, 87
FR 31783 (May 25, 2022), 179 FERC ¶ 61,114)
(2022) (NOPR).
3 18 CFR 154.312 and 154.313 (2021).
4 18 CFR 154.312.
5 Filing & Reporting Requirements for Interstate
Nat. Gas Co. Rate Schedules & Tariffs, Order No.
582, 60 FR 52,960, 52,994 (Oct. 11, 1995), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,025 (1995) (cross-referenced at 72
FERC ¶ 61,300), order on clarification, 76 FERC
¶ 61,077 (1996).
2 Revised

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

71512

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

informed comments.6 Subsequently, the
FERC Implementation Guide for
Electronic Filing of Parts 35, 154, 284,
300 and 341 Tariff Filings (FERC
Implementation Guide) stated that the
‘‘submission of spreadsheets in native
file format is preferred for Statements A
through M, including related schedules.
Statements O and P may use any
electronic format that renders text,
graphics, spreadsheets or data bases that
the Commission accepts (the list of
FERC Acceptable File Formats is
available on http://www.ferc.gov).’’ 7
Furthermore, for Statements I, J and a
portion of H, the FERC Implementation
Guide stated that if spreadsheets in
native format are not available, the
natural gas pipeline may submit those
statements using any of the
aforementioned acceptable electronic
formats that the Commission accepts.8
4. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed to require natural gas
pipelines to submit all statements,
schedules and workpapers in native
format with formulas and links intact 9
when filing a general NGA section 4 rate
case. As the Commission explained in
the NOPR, requiring all statements,
schedules and workpapers to be filed in
native format will reconcile any
ambiguity in the current requirements.10
Moreover, the Commission explained
that this requirement would address the
information gap that currently exists
because, when a pipeline submits a
section 4 rate case filing the
Commission often cannot verify
whether there were underlying links
used to develop a spreadsheet or
whether a pipeline severed those links
before filing its rate case.11 Furthermore,
the Commission stated that requiring
spreadsheets with links and formulas
intact will enable rate case participants
to manipulate the cost-of-service
components (including billing
determinants) to evaluate different rate
outcomes without the need to create
their own rate models, which will
6 In Order No. 703, the Commission confirmed
the requirement that pipelines submit spreadsheets
in native format for Statements I, J and a portion
of H, including intact formulas. Filing Via the
Internet, Order No. 703, 72 FR 65659 (Nov. 23,
2007), 121 FERC ¶ 61,171, at P 26 (2007).
7 FERC Implementation Guide for Electronic
Filing of Parts 35, 154, 284, 300 & 341 Tariff Filings
(2016).
8 Id.
9 ‘‘Formulas and links intact’’ include formulas
and links within individual spreadsheets and
between spreadsheets. For example, the
Commission explained that the proposal would
require that formulas and links within Schedule I–
2 be intact within Schedule I–2, and intact for any
progressive calculations that flow data from
Schedule I–2.
10 NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,114 at P 6.
11 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:59 Nov 22, 2022

Jkt 259001

expedite settlement negotiations and
allow all rate case participants to
evaluate the filing on an equal footing.12
5. The Commission also stated that
submitting all statements, schedules and
workpapers in native format will
provide for a timely and comprehensive
analysis of a rate case filing.13 All
interested rate case participants will be
able to evaluate the statements and
schedules once they are filed, rather
than needing to wait to obtain the
information through discovery or to
create their own rate models.
6. Finally, the Commission stated that
the current policy on this issue is
outdated because information
technology has significantly improved
since the issuance of Order No. 582 in
1995, and pipelines now routinely
develop rate cases using Microsoft Excel
and submit them electronically.14
7. The NOPR was published in the
Federal Register on May 25, 2022 15 and
established a comment date of June 24,
2022. The Commission received eight
comments and two reply comments
from a variety of stakeholders.16 XES,
National Grid and Exelon, generally
support the Commission’s proposal,
while Energy Transfer, BHE GT&S,
INGAA, Joint Commenters and Public
Citizen, also generally support the
proposal and request further
clarifications.
II. Discussion
8. We adopt the proposal set forth in
the NOPR to require natural gas
pipelines to submit all supporting
statements, schedules and workpapers
in native format with all links and
12 Id.
13 Id.

P 7.
P 8.
15 Revised Filing & Reporting Requirements for
Interstate Nat. Gas Co. Rate Schedules & Tariffs, 87
FR 31783 (May 25, 2022), 179 FERC ¶ 61,114
(2022).
16 Comments were submitted by Xcel Energy
Services Inc. on behalf of the Xcel Energy Operating
Companies (XES); the Brooklyn Union Gas
Company d/b/a National Grid NY, KeySpan Gas
East Corporation d/b/a National Grid, Boston Gas
Company d/b/a National Grid, and Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid
(collectively, National Grid); Exelon Corporation,
on behalf of its local gas distribution company
subsidiaries Baltimore Gas and Electric Company,
Delmarva Power and Light Company, and PECO
Energy Company (Exelon); Energy Transfer LP
(Energy Transfer); BHE GT&S, LLC and its gas
transmission and storage entities, which include
Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc., Cove
Point LNG, LP, and Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC
(BHE GT&S); the Interstate Natural Gas Association
of America (INGAA); the American Gas
Association, American Public Gas Association,
American Forest & Paper Association, Industrial
Energy Consumers of America, Process Gas
Consumers Group, and Natural Gas Supply
Association (collectively, Joint Commenters); and
Public Citizen, Inc. (Public Citizen).
14 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

formulas included when filing an NGA
section 4 rate case. We acknowledge the
requests from certain commenters that
the Commission undertake various
additional initiatives, but we find that
those requested initiatives go beyond
the scope of this rulemaking, as
explained below.
A. The Final Rule Imposes a Reasonable
Burden on Pipelines
1. Comments
9. Energy Transfer argues that ‘‘the
proposed rule takes the additional,
unjust and unreasonable step of
requiring a pipeline to create links and
formulas in successive documents even
if the pipeline did not need or use such
links and formulas when it prepared
and filed its rate case.’’ 17 Energy
Transfer states that ‘‘requiring a pipeline
to specially create and file links or
formulas it did not need or use to
prepare and file its rate case is arbitrary
and capricious and does not constitute
reasoned decision-making because it
would unreasonably shift litigation
costs and burdens to interstate natural
gas pipelines.’’ 18 Energy Transfer
further states that ‘‘such costs should be
borne by the limited number of
participants involved in rate case
litigation that seek to analyze rates in
specific detail to litigate their individual
rate issues.’’ 19
10. Joint Commenters disagree with
Energy Transfer, arguing that the burden
on pipelines would be limited because
Order No. 582 already requires
pipelines to provide data for certain
statements with formulas included, and
subsequent orders reiterate these
requirements.20 Second, Joint
Commenters argue that pipelines bear
the burden of supporting a rate filing.
Moreover, Joint Commenters point out
that to the extent that pipelines incur
additional costs related to complying
with any new rule that the Commission
issues, pipelines can seek to recover the
costs in a rate proceeding, and therefore,
the costs are not being shifted
impermissibly to the pipelines.21
11. BHE GT&S requests that the
Commission clarify that a natural gas
pipeline is not required to create links
across statements and schedules where
they did not already exist.22 BHE GT&S
argues that it is not reasonable to require
17 Energy

Transfer Comments at 2.

18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Joint Commenters Reply Comments at 5 (citing
Order No. 582, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,025, at
31,435).
21 Id. at 7–8.
22 BHE GT&S Comments at 4.

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
rate case participants to create links
where none exist in the first instance.

filing due to the pipeline severing
underlying links prior to filing.28

a. Commission Determination
12. We disagree with Energy
Transfer’s argument that the NOPR
proposal which we adopt in this final
rule is unjust and unreasonable. First,
we find that this final rule does not
unreasonably shift litigation costs from
intervenors to the pipeline. The pipeline
has the burden under NGA section 4 to
support its proposed rates in its case in
chief.23 This final rule merely requires
pipelines to provide intact links and
formulas in the workpapers and
schedules that must be included in the
case in chief.24 This final rule does not
require pipelines to fund the litigation
costs of other participants. Moreover,
while pipelines may incur increased
costs to comply with this final rule, we
find that any additional burden would
be limited, and pipelines are allowed to
recover those costs through their rates.
13. Finally, we deny BHE GT&S’s
request for clarification that a natural
gas pipeline is not required to create
links across statements and schedules
where they did not already exist. Rather,
this final rule does require natural gas
pipelines to create links and formulas to
show the pipeline’s progressive
calculations in the supporting
statements, schedules and workpapers.

b. Commission Determination

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

2. The Final Rule Properly Addresses
the Information Gap Occurring When
Formulas and Links Are Not Provided
a. Comments
14. Energy Transfer, citing the NOPR,
notes that the Commission ‘‘seek[s] to
address this information gap and
require natural gas pipelines to file
statements and schedules linking
progressive calculations regardless of
how the statements and schedules were
created.’’ 25 Energy Transfer contends
that the ‘‘Commission’s proposal is
based on a false premise because no socalled ‘information gap’ exists, and all
the information and data are included in
the pipeline’s rate case filing.’’ 26 Energy
Transfer further argues that a pipeline
may create an Excel file without certain
links or formulas because such links or
formulas are not necessary or helpful to
prepare and file the rate case.27 Energy
Transfer contends that a search of the
Commission’s orders did not reveal any
published orders where the Commission
rejected a pipeline’s NGA section 4 rate
23 15

U.S.C. 717c(e).
CFR 154.312 to 154.314 (2021).
25 NOPR, 179 FERC ¶ 61,114 at P 6 (emphasis
added).
26 Energy Transfer Comments at 4.
27 Id.
24 18

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:59 Nov 22, 2022

Jkt 259001

15. Based on the record developed in
this proceeding, we disagree with
Energy Transfer’s contention that an
information gap does not exist. A rate
model without formulas and links intact
is much less useful to rate case
participants who are trying to evaluate
a natural gas pipeline’s rate design, cost
allocations, or rate calculations. When a
pipeline files a rate model without
formulas and links, rate case
participants must recreate the natural
gas pipeline’s model, which is
inefficient and duplicative. Requiring
spreadsheets and workpapers to be filed
with links and formulas included will
allow rate case participants to
manipulate the cost-of-service
components and billing determinants
without creating their own rate models.
This will expedite settlement
negotiations and will allow all rate case
participants to evaluate the filing on an
equal footing with the pipeline.
16. Moreover, under this final rule,
rate case participants can begin
evaluating a natural gas pipeline’s rate
design, cost allocations, and rate
calculations immediately in the
comment period after a pipeline files a
section 4 rate case and thus file betterinformed comments. Furthermore,
requiring pipelines to file all statements
and schedules with formulas and links
intact will enable all rate case
participants to evaluate the filing and
any settlement offers from the same
baseline, as opposed to all rate case
participants creating their own rate
models. Thus, the final rule will
streamline the rate case process,
including settlement discussions, and
avoid rate case participants exchanging
multiple rounds of discovery and
testimony just to understand the rate
model’s underlying calculations, which
are fundamental to the rate case.
17. Energy Transfer argues that there
is no evidence that natural gas pipelines
are severing existing links.29 We find
this point irrelevant. The development
of a rate model, with formulas and links
intact, is imperative to the proper
functioning of the model. If there are
severed links within the rate model then
a change in input in one statement will
not update to its corresponding change
on another statement. Without this flow
through of information, rate case
participants can not properly ascertain
28 Id.
29 Id.

PO 00000

at n.13.
at 5.

Frm 00007

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

71513

the intended rate design, cost
allocations, and rate calculations.
18. Whether or not pipelines are
severing links or the links never existed,
there is an information gap between the
pipeline and rate case participants
involved in a rate case if the rate model
fails to include links and formulas
essential to understanding the rate
calculations. This final rule seeks to
close that gap.
3. The Final Rule Provides Adequate
Notice of Changes in Policy
a. Comments
19. Energy Transfer states the
Commission’s proposal fails to include
proposed regulations describing what
must be provided in a rate case filing.
Therefore, pipelines would not have any
notice in the regulations as to what is
being required by the rulemaking unless
it separately was aware of this
proceeding.30 Additionally, Energy
Transfer claims a ‘‘lack of proper notice
and lack of specific language in the
regulations does not comply with the
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act.’’ 31
b. Commission Determination
20. We are not persuaded by Energy
Transfer’s argument that the NOPR
failed to provide adequate notice to
pipelines of what is being required by
this rulemaking. Although the NOPR
did not include proposed regulations,
the NOPR fully described the proposed
filing requirements. Furthermore, the
Commission’s regulations do not
discuss filing formats, and we see no
need in this proceeding to add that level
of granularity to meet the requirements
of the Administrative Procedures Act.32
While the NGA section 4 requirements
in the regulations remain the same,
technology and procedures evolve. We
continue to believe it is appropriate for
natural gas pipelines to rely on the
FERC Implementation Guide for
detailed guidance on filing requirements
that goes beyond the regulations.33
Therefore, we find Energy Transfer’s
notice arguments unavailing.
30 Id.

at 10.

31 Id.
32 See, e.g., Pub. Util. Transmission Rate Changes
to Address Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes,
Order No. 864, 84 FR 65,281 (Nov. 27, 2019), 169
FERC ¶ 61,139 (2019), order on reh’g and
clarification, 171 FERC ¶ 61,033 (2020). While not
revising any regulatory text, the Commission is
using the process provided for rulemaking
proceedings, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 551(4)–(5).
33 See also Tex. E. Transmission, LP, 165 FERC
¶ 61,287, at P 31 (2018); E. Tenn. Nat. Gas, LLC, 172
FERC ¶ 61,114, at PP 33–34 (2020).

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

71514

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

4. Formulas and Links in Statements
and Schedules Filed Publicly Are
Presumed To Be Public
a. Comments
21. Joint Commenters request that the
final rule address the presumption that
native format files, with formulas intact,
of publicly filed material should be
publicly available. Joint Commenters
note that ratepayers have recently
experienced a situation where a
pipeline claimed that links in its Excel
spreadsheets for statements and related
schedules should receive confidential
treatment, even though the statements
and schedules themselves (without
links) had been filed publicly.34 Joint
Commenters argue that such treatment
is unnecessary, and the pipeline’s claim
of confidentiality created an additional
burden for shippers that hindered the
administrative process. Therefore, Joint
Commenters ask that the final rule
clarify that native format files, with
links and formulas intact, of publicly
filed material are presumed to be
publicly available.
22. INGAA opposes Joint
Commenters’ request that the final rule
implement a blanket denial of any
request under § 388.112 for privileged
treatment of any portion of the rate
model spreadsheets that the
Commission is requiring natural gas
pipelines to file as part of the proposed
rule.35 According to INGAA, the
statements, schedules and workpapers
with formulas and links intact are
commercial information that certain
pipelines treat as private and are
provided by those pipelines to the
Commission with the expectation that
the information will not be generally
available on the public docket for use
outside of the rate case.36 INGAA states
that the Commission acknowledged in
Order No. 703 that a pipeline is entitled
to submit spreadsheets as privileged and
only provide the flat files or a PDF as
the public version of the protected
information.37 INGAA further states that
privileged treatment of the rate model
statements, schedules and workpapers
with formula and links intact is also
consistent with the treatment of
information as confidential under the
Chief Administrative Law Judge’s Model
Protective Order, and therefore there are
already procedures in place to address
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

34 Joint

Commenters Comments at 11–12.
Reply Comments at 2.
36 Id. at 4 (citing Seife v. Food & Drug Admin.,
492 F. Supp. 3d 269, 276–77 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
(limited disclosures subject to nondisclosure
agreements and ‘‘not made to the general public, do
not preclude Exemption 4 protection’’)).
37 Id. at 4–5 (citing Order No. 703, 121 FERC
¶ 61,171 at P 26).

Joint Commenters’ concerns about
access to privileged information.38
23. INGAA argues that there are many
reasons to seek protection of the rate
model spreadsheets based on concerns
that disclosure may result in
competitive disadvantage or other
business injury. Specifically, INGAA
states that it is concerned that third
parties with no legitimate interest in the
ratemaking process may misuse, modify,
or misrepresent the cost allocation or
rate design results contained within the
spreadsheets in ways that would be
difficult or impossible to clarify. INGAA
argues that such misuse could be the
basis for unsupported claims that the
pipeline is earning more than a
reasonable return or unfairly allocating
costs, which could affect the pipeline’s
value to potential investors, lenders,
shippers, or other market participants.
INGAA states that any administrative
convenience is outweighed by the risk
of competitive harm or other business
injury resulting from publicly filing
proprietary information, and that the
Commission and the participants in a
rate case already have the unobstructed
right to this information.39
b. Commission Determination
24. We decline to adopt Joint
Commenters’ requested clarification. A
filer may request confidential treatment,
and the Commission will evaluate such
requests on a case-by-case basis. 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 388.112.40 As
Joint Commenters note, however, the
information in a rate model is generally
already public information and
pipelines seeking confidential treatment
will have the burden of proof that
confidential treatment is warranted.
5. Formulas and Links Must Be
Maintained Only Between Schedules
and Workpapers Filed in the Same Rate
Case
a. Comments
25. INGAA requests that the
Commission clarify that ‘‘formulas and
links intact’’ means formulas and links
within and between statements,
schedules and workpapers filed in the
same rate case, not formulas contained
in or links to spreadsheets not required
as part of the initial filing.41 INGAA
states that the Commission recognized

35 INGAA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:59 Nov 22, 2022

Jkt 259001

38 Id.

at 5–6.
at 6.
40 See Order No. 582, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,025, at 31,435, Order No. 703, 121 FERC
¶ 61,171 at P 26.
41 INGAA Comments at 2 (citing Order No. 582,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,025, at 31,435).
39 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

this distinction in Order No. 582
between formulas in workpapers and
statements submitted in the rate case
and formulas located in or links to
separate spreadsheets not submitted as
part of the pipeline’s filing, and asserts
that the Commission rejected a
suggestion that pipelines must produce
the ‘‘underlying spreadsheets, models,
and databases relied upon to prepare the
filing in an electronic format’’ upon
request.42
26. In addition, INGAA states that the
Commission should continue to permit
pipelines to file Statements O and P in
any manner consistent with the current
FERC Implementation Guide,
specifically in ‘‘any electronic format
that renders text, graphics, spreadsheets
or data bases that the Commission
accepts.’’ 43 INGAA argues that these
statements do not contain links within
the statement or to other statements, and
the submission of Statements O and P
in native format will not enable
participants in the rate proceeding to
more easily manipulate information or
to analyze the statements in a more
timely or comprehensive manner.44
Furthermore, INGAA requests that the
Commission clarify that the proposed
rule does not expand the information
that pipelines must submit when
initiating an NGA section 4 rate case,
but modifies the format of the
statements, schedules, and workpapers
currently required by the Commission’s
regulations.45
b. Commission Determination
27. We affirm that the final rule’s
requirement that rate models be filed
with ‘‘formulas and links intact’’ applies
to statements, schedules, and
workpapers filed in the same rate case
and not to formulas contained in or
links to spreadsheets not required as
part of the initial filing. However, we
clarify that to the extent a natural gas
pipeline creates a workpaper to create a
statement or schedule required by
§ 154.312 of the Commission’s
regulations (e.g., an allocation
workpaper that informs the I
Schedules), the pipeline must file that
workpaper with formulas and links
intact, as that workpaper is essential to
42 Id. at 3 (citing Order No. 582, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ¶ 31,025 at 31,435). INGAA also states that the
Commission stated that this information ‘‘may be
discoverable at hearing if found necessary in a
particular case.’’ Id.
43 Id. at 4 (citing FERC Implementation Guide for
Elec. Filing of Parts 35, 154, 284, 300 & 341 Tariff
Filings, Order No. 703, 72 FR 65659 (Nov. 23, 2007),
121 FERC ¶ 61,171 at P 24 (‘‘Submission of text
documents will be permissible in native or in
searchable format.’’)).
44 Id.
45 Id. at 5.

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
understanding the rate model’s inputs
and calculations. This includes links
within the workpaper, and between the
workpaper and the statement or
schedule that relies on that workpaper.
28. We grant the request to clarify that
Statements O and P do not contain links
within the statement or to other
statements or schedules, and therefore
may continue to be filed in any manner
consistent with the FERC
Implementation Guide for these
statements. We also affirm that this final
rule does not expand the information
that pipelines must submit when
initiating an NGA section 4 general rate
case but clarifies the format
requirements with which such
information must comply.
6. Application of the Final Rule to Other
Rate Case Participants and Scenarios Is
Beyond the Scope of This Proceeding
a. Comments
29. BHE GT&S requests that the
Commission clarify that the requirement
for natural gas pipelines to provide
supporting statements, schedules and
workpapers in native format should
‘‘also apply equally to all parties,
including Commission staff and
intervenors, when submitting rate case
materials.’’ 46 Specifically, BHE GT&S
states that the Commission should
clarify that the changes proposed in the
NOPR should apply equally to parties
submitting a complaint requesting the
initiation of a proceeding under NGA
section 5, as well as to information
submitted by Commission staff or other
stakeholders in rebuttal to an NGA
section 4 rate case.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

b. Commission Determination
30. The NOPR did not propose to
require rate case participants to provide
supporting statements, schedules and
workpapers in native format during
NGA section 5 proceedings as suggested
by BHE GT&S. We decline to apply the
final rule to NGA section 5 complaint
cases, as they are outside the scope of
this proceeding. The final rule applies
solely to natural gas pipelines filing
general NGA section 4 rate cases.
Moreover, we decline to require all rate
case participants to a general NGA
section 4 rate case to comply with the
final rule. In an NGA section 4 rate case,
the pipeline has the burden of proof to
justify its change in rates. If a rate case
is fully litigated at hearing, natural gas
pipelines may seek rate models with
links and formulas included from other
participants through discovery.
46 BHE

GT&S Comments at 2.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:59 Nov 22, 2022

7. Additional Changes to Reporting
Requirements Are Beyond the Scope of
This Proceeding
a. Comments
31. Public Citizen argues that
additional disclosure improvements are
required to ensure the public has access
to accurate information about the
shippers that secure shipping capacity
on natural gas pipelines. Public Citizen
states that currently the Commission’s
regulations at 18 CFR 284.13(b) delegate
such reporting to the pipelines, allowing
natural gas pipelines to post shipper
information on their website, rather
than having the Commission publish
such information in a centralized format
on the Commission’s website. Public
Citizen further argues that natural gas
pipelines’ compliance with 18 CFR
284.13(b) is haphazard, with natural gas
pipelines prioritizing their own website
content and making it difficult to find
the Commission-required disclosures.
Public Citizen contends that the
Commission’s rule requiring pipelines
to archive such information for only 90
days impedes the public interest,
because most pipelines charge a fee to
access material older than 90 days. In
addition, Public Citizen argues that it is
difficult to locate shipper information
on many pipeline websites. Therefore,
Public Citizen requests that the
Commission expand the final rule to
include natural gas pipeline reporting
requirements. Public Citizen suggest
that the Commission post shipper data
and other information on the
Commission’s website and provide the
public with free archival access.
b. Commission Determination
32. We decline to expand the final
rule as Public Citizen requests. The
NOPR did not propose reforms related
to these issues raised by Public Citizen.
The final rule is intended to improve
the efficiency of general NGA section 4
rate cases, not to revise separate and
unrelated reporting requirements
already set forth in the Commission’s
regulations. Therefore, Public Citizen’s
concerns are outside the scope of this
proceeding and we decline to address
them at this time.
III. Information Collection Statement
33. The information collection
requirements contained in this final rule
are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.47 OMB’s
regulations require approval of certain
information collection requirements
47 44

Jkt 259001

PO 00000

U.S.C. 3507(d).

Frm 00009

Fmt 4700

imposed by agency rules.48 Upon
approval of a collection of information,
OMB will assign an OMB control
number and expiration date.
Respondents subject to the filing
requirements of this rule will not be
penalized for failing to respond to these
collections of information unless the
collections of information display a
valid OMB control number.
34. This final rule modifies the
currently approved information
collection associated with FERC–545,
Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (NonFormal) (OMB Control No. 1902–0154)
(FERC–545) by updating the
requirements for submitting a rate case
under section 4 of the NGA.
35. Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426 via email (DataClearance@
ferc.gov) or telephone (202) 502–8663).
36. In the NOPR, the Commission
solicited comments on the
Commission’s need for this information,
whether the information will have
practical utility, the accuracy of the
burden estimates, ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected or retained,
and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondents’ burden,
including the use of automated
information techniques.
37. Title: Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate
Change (Non-Formal).
38. Action: Modification of collection
of information in accordance with
RM21–18–000.
39. OMB Control No.: 1902–0154.
40. Respondents for this Rulemaking:
Gas pipelines filing an NGA section 4
rate case.
41. Frequency of Information
Collection: As needed for section 4 rate
cases.
42. Necessity of Information: This
final rule requires all statements,
schedules and workpapers submitted
during a section 4 rate case to be
submitted in native format with all links
and formulas intact. The modification to
this collection is intended to reduce the
overall burden for all rate case
participants involved in a section 4 rate
case.
43. Internal Review: The Commission
has reviewed the changes and has
determined that such changes are
necessary. These requirements conform
to the Commission’s need for efficient
information collection, communication,
and management within the energy
48 5

Sfmt 4700

71515

CFR 1320.11 (2021).

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

71516

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations

industry. The Commission has specific,
objective support for the burden

estimates associated with the
information collection requirements.

44. The Commission estimates that
the final rule will affect the burden 49
and cost 50 as follows:

MODIFICATIONS TO FERC 545 FROM FINAL RULE IN DOCKET NO. RM21–18–000
A.

Area of modification

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

Number of
respondents

Annual
estimated
number of
responses per
respondent

Annual
estimated
number of
responses
(Column B ×
Column C)

Average burden hours &
cost per response

Total estimated burden
hours & total
estimated cost
(Column D × Column E)

100 hours; $10,300 ........

800 hours; $82,400

Section 4
FERC 545: Annual Section 4 Rate
Cases.

8

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

45. For the purposes of estimating
burden in this final rule, in the table
above, we conservatively estimate the
annual total of general section 4 rate
cases to be eight. This number is higher
than the Commission’s average number
of section 4 rate cases, but we created
our estimate to allow for potential
additional rate case submissions.
46. FERC–545 is required to
implement rates pursuant to sections 4,
5, and 16 of NGA, (15 U.S.C. 717c&
717o, Pub. L. 75 688, 52 Stat. 822 and
830). NGA sections 4, 5, and 16
authorize the Commission to inquire
into rate structures and methodologies
and to set rates at a just and reasonable
level. Specifically, a natural gas pipeline
must obtain Commission authorization
for all rates and charges made,
demanded, or received in connection
with the transportation or sale of natural
gas in interstate commerce. The
modification as described in this final
rule in Docket No. RM21–18–000 only
impacts filings under section 4 of the
NGA. The collections associated with
sections 5 and 16 remain unchanged.

Rate Case
1

8

information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination, and for rules regarding
sales, exchange, and transportation of
natural gas that require no construction
of facilities.52 Therefore, an
environmental review is unnecessary
and has not been prepared in this
rulemaking.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

IV. Environmental Analysis
47. 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.51 The actions proposed to
be taken here fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission’s
regulations for rules regarding

48. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 53 generally requires a
description and analysis of final rules
that will have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Commission intends to
pose the least possible burden on all
entities both large and small.
49. The final rule only applies to
natural gas pipelines who file a section
4 rate case. There are a total of 145
entities that may file a rate change and
may be impacted by the final rule. The
Small Business Administration (SBA)
defines a small entity in the category of,
‘‘Pipeline Transportation of Natural
Gas’’ 54 by entities with fewer than $30
million of annual receipts. Out of the
total number of entities, only five are
small entities as defined by the SBA
(∼3% of the total population). We
estimate the annual additional costs of
filing a section 4 rate case to be $10,300.
We further estimate an average of eight
responses per year and conservatively
estimate that one may be a small entity.
Therefore, the proposed rule does not

49 ‘‘Burden’’ is the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to
or for a federal agency. For further explanation of
what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
50 The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits)
provided in this section is based on the salary
figures for May 2021 posted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics for the Utilities sector (available at https://
www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm) and
scaled to reflect benefits using the relative

importance of employer costs for employee
compensation from March 2022 (available at
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).
The hourly estimates for salary plus benefits are:
Computer and Information Systems Manager
(Occupation Code: 11–3021), $111.63; Computer
and Information Analysts (Occupation Code: 15–
1210), $76.35; Electrical Engineer (Occupation
Code: 17–2071), $77.02; Legal (Occupation Code:
23–0000), $145.35. The average hourly cost (salary
plus benefits) weighting all of the above skill sets
evenly, is $102.59. We round it to $103/hour.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:59 Nov 22, 2022

Jkt 259001

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

pose a significant change to small
entities.
VI. Document Availability
50. 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).
51. 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.
52. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the FERC’s website during
normal business hours from FERC
Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll
free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the
Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
VII. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
53. This final rule is effective
December 23, 2022. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of
the Administrator of the Office of
51 Reguls. Implementing the Nat’l Env’t Pol’y Act,
Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41
FERC ¶ 61,284).
52 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5) &
380.4(a)(27) (2021).
53 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
54 Small Business Administration NAICS
Category 486210, ‘‘Pipeline Transportation of
Natural Gas’’ under 13 CFR Chapter 1 Part 121.

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, that this rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined in section 351 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996.
By the Commission. Commissioner Danly
is concurring with a separate statement
attached.
Issued: November 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

Revised Filing and Reporting
Requirements for Interstate Natural Gas
Company Rate Schedules and Tariffs
(Issued November 17, 2022)
DANLY, Commissioner, concurring:
I concur with today’s final rule as I
believe it complies with the Natural Gas
Act and the Administrative Procedure
Act.1 I write separately to express my
apprehension that the Commission does
not fully appreciate the burden that will
be incurred, or how long it will take, for
jurisdictional entities to come into
compliance.2 It is my understanding
that some pipeline companies currently
create each statement and its supporting
schedules using different software that
do not, by themselves, link. Requiring
links may require a pipeline company to
upgrade existing, or implement entirely
new, software systems—tasks which
oftentimes are neither simple nor
inexpensive. And while ‘‘pipelines are
allowed to recover those costs through
their rates,’’ 3 I would have preferred to
have solicited additional comment on
the cost and timing of the software
upgrades that this rule might require in
order to better inform our decision on
whether and when to impose these
changes.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.

James P. Danly,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2022–25601 Filed 11–22–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

[Docket No. USCG–2022–0226]
RIN 1625–AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Milford Haven, Hudgins, VA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.

The Coast Guard is
temporarily modifying the operating
schedule that governs the SR223
(Gwynn’s Island) Bridge, across Milford
Haven, mile 0.1, at Hudgins, Virginia.
The temporary modification will allow
the drawbridge to be maintained in the
closed-to-navigation position and is
necessary to accommodate bridge
maintenance.

SUMMARY:

Docket No. RM21–18–000

1 Revised Filing & Reporting Requirements for
Interstate Nat. Gas Co. Rate Schedules & Tariffs,
181 FERC ¶ 61,121 (2022).
2 Id. P 12 (‘‘Moreover, while pipelines may incur
increased costs to comply with this final rule, we
find that any additional burden would be
limited. . . .’’).
3 Id.

Jkt 259001

33 CFR Part 117

ACTION:

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION

15:59 Nov 22, 2022

Coast Guard

AGENCY:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VerDate Sep<11>2014

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY

This temporary final rule is
effective from December 23, 2022,
through 11 p.m. on April 15, 2023.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Type the docket
number USCG–2022–0226 in the
‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ In
the Document Type column, select
‘‘Supporting & Related Material.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
final rule, call or email Ms. Crystal
Tucker, Bridge Administration Branch
Fifth District, Coast Guard telephone
757–398–6422, email Crystal.k.tucker@
uscg.mil.
DATES:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
On June 14, 2022, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking, with a request for
comments, entitled Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Milford Haven,
Hudgins, VA in the Federal Register 87
FR 35939. There, we stated why we
issued the NPRM, and invited
comments on our proposed regulatory
action related to the bridge
maintenance. During the comment
period that ended July 1, 2022, we
received no comments.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

71517

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
The SR223 (Gwynn’s Island) Bridge,
across Milford Haven, mile 0.1, at
Hudgins, Virginia has a vertical
clearance of 12 feet above mean high
water in the closed position and
unlimited vertical clearance above mean
high water in the open position. The
current operating schedule for the
drawbridge is published in 33 CFR
117.5.
This temporary rule is necessary to
facilitate safe and effective maintenance
of the drawbridge. Under this temporary
rule, the drawbridge will be maintained
in the closed-to-navigation position
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a
week. The bridge will not be able to
open for emergencies and there is no
immediate alternative route for vessels
unable to pass through the bridge in the
closed position. Vessels that can safely
transit through the bridge in the closed
position with the reduced clearance
must provide at least a thirty-minute
notice to allow for navigation safety.
The SR223 (Gwynn’s Island) Bridge is
the only land-based method for access
on and off Gwynn’s Island, therefore,
placing the bridge in the open position
to perform extensive bridge
maintenance would adversely affect
residents on the island.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes
and the Temporary Final Rule
The Coast Guard provided a comment
period of 16 days and no comments
were received. No changes were made to
the regulatory text of this temporary
final rule.
V. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive Orders.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
This rule has not been designated a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination
is a result of pre rulemaking
coordination with maritime
stakeholders including federal agencies.
This proposed rule effectively balances

E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM

23NOR1