Federal Register: February 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 38)
DOCID: FR Doc 06-1765
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
CFR Citation: 18 CFR Parts 41, 158, 286 and 349
Docket ID: [Docket No. RM06-2-000; Order No. 675]
ACTION: Electric utilities (Federal Power Act), natural gas companies (Natural Gas Act), Natural Gas Policy Act, & oil pipeline companies (Interstate Commerce Act):
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
Procedures for Disposition of Contested Audit Matters
DATES: Effective Date: This Final Rule will become effective March 29, 2006.
In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its regulations to expand due process for certain audited persons who dispute findings or proposed remedies contained in draft audit reports.
Contested audit matters; disposition procedures,
DOCUMENT BODY 2:
Issued February 17, 2006.
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, and Suedeen G. Kelly
1. The Final Rule expands the procedural rights of persons subject
to audits conducted by Commission staff under the Federal Power Act
(FPA),\1\ the Natural Gas Act (NGA),\2\ the Natural Gas Policy Act of
1978 (NGPA) \3\ and the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).\4\ Under current
practice, audited persons who disagree with nonfinancial audit matters
approved by the Commission must seek rehearing of that order. Under the
Final Rule, such audited persons may elect to file briefs with the
Commission, or, in appropriate circumstances, participate in a trial
type hearing to challenge audit matters before the Commission makes its
decision on the merits. This revised procedure affords enhanced due
process to audited persons who disagree with the findings or proposed remedies suggested by audit staff.\5\
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq. (2000).
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq. (2000).
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 3301 et seq. (2000).
\4\ 49 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq. (2000).
\5\ As explained below, the Final Rule does not apply to audits pertaining to reliability that the Commission authorized in Order No. 672, Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Docket No. RM0530 000, 114 FERC ] 61,104 (February 2, 2006) (ERO Audits).
2. Under the Final Rule, following completion of the audit process,
the Commission will issue an order on the merits with respect to non
disputed audit matters contained in a notice of deficiency, audit
report, or similar document, and will notice, without making any
findings on the merits, any disputed audit matters. The audited person
may then elect a shortened procedure \6\ or a trialtype procedure to
challenge the disputed audit matters. The Commission would honor this
election unless the Commission determines that there are no material facts in dispute which require a trialtype proceeding.
\6\ The term ``shortened procedure'' as used in the Final Rule and the accompanying regulatory text refers to a ``paper hearing'' or briefing of matters only, and it does not include a trialtype hearing.
3. As set forth in further detail below, twelve companies filed initial comments \7\ and four companies filed
reply comments \8\ to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) which the Commission issued in this docket.\9\ In response to the comments, and as discussed more fully below, the Commission, among other things: Clarifies the scope of application of the Final Rule; addresses the role of interested persons in the proposed procedures; discusses informal procedures for resolving disputed audit matters between audited persons and the Commission's audit staff; and addresses comments that pertain to implementation issues and audit practices and other matters that underlie the procedures in the Final Rule. \7\ The entities filing initial comments in this proceeding (initial comments) were Ameren Services Company (Ameren); American Public Gas Association (APGA); American Public Power Association (APPA); American Transmission Company LLC (ATC); Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL); Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., LIPA, New York Power Authority, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (Indicated New York Transmission Owners); Edison Electric Institute (EEI); Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA); LG&E Energy LLC (LG&E); Midwest ISO Transmission Owners; Public Service Company of New Mexico and TexasNew Mexico Power Company (PNMTNMP); and Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin). \8\ The entities filing reply comments in this proceeding (reply comments) were APGA; EEI; INGAA; and Williston Basin.
\9\ Procedures for Disposition of Contested Audit Matters, 70 FR 65866 (Nov. 1, 2005); IV FERC Stats. & Regs., Proposed Regulations ] 32,592 (2005).
4. In response to the filed comments, the Commission finds that a
change to the proposed regulatory text is warranted to permit an
audited person who has elected the shortened procedure to file a motion
with the Commission for a trialtype proceeding in circumstances where
a party has raised one or more new issues in the shortened procedure.
In addition, three minor changes to the wording of the proposed
regulatory text are warranted: (1) Clarifying that an audited person
\10\ may challenge, using the procedures set forth in the Final Rule,
either one or more audit findings, or one or more proposed remedies, or
both, in any combination; (2) specifying the number of days an audited
person has to notify the Commission of its election of shortened
procedures or a trialtype hearing and the number of days to file
memoranda under the shortened procedure; and (3) deleting reference to
Standards of Conduct or Codes of Conduct in section 349.1, which pertains to oil pipeline companies.
\10\ The term ``person'' as used in the NOPR and in the Final Rule and the accompanying regulatory text is the same as the definition of person found in parts 101 (Definition 24) and 201 (Definition 27) of the Commission's regulations, which define ``person'' as follows: ``An individual, a corporation, a
partnership, an association, a joint stock company, a business trust, or any other organized group of persons, whether incorporated or not, or any receiver or trust.''
5. On October 20, 2005, the Commission issued an NOPR to apply
existing procedures for challenging the Commission staff's financial
audit findings and proposed remedies to all Commission staff audits,
including operational audit findings and proposed remedies. Pursuant to
section 309 of the FPA,\11\ section 16 of the NGA,\12\ sections 20 and
204(a)(6) of the ICA \13\ and section 501 of the NGPA,\14\ the
Commission proposed to amend part 41 under Subchapter B, part 158 under
Subchapter E and part 286 under Subchapter I, and to add a part 349
under Subchapter P, to Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, an audited person would be able to
challenge staff audit findings and proposed remedies (collectively,
audit matters) before the issuance of a Commission order on the merits of those audit matters.
\11\ 16 U.S.C. 825h (2000).
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 717o (2000).
\13\ 49 U.S.C. App. 20 and 204(a)(6) (2000).
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 3411 (2000).
6. As explained in the NOPR, relevant portions of the existing
language of parts 41 and 158 of the Commission's regulations that
relate to procedures for challenging audit matters date at least to
1937.\15\ Those regulations address audits of financial matters. In
more recent years, the Commission has expanded the scope of its audits
to determine compliance with the Commission's Standards of Conduct,\16\
Open Access Transmission Tariff requirements, and Codes of Conduct,
among other requirements. The Final Rule will provide the enhanced
procedures long applicable to financial audits to all audits, other than ERO Audits, conducted by the Commission or its staff.
\15\ See Federal Power Commission, Rules of Practice and Regulations 301(a) (Revised Jan. 1, 1937).
\16\ See 18 CFR part 358 (2005).
7. The 12 initial comments and four reply comments were overwhelmingly supportive of the Commission's efforts to provide a more complete and expansive procedure for persons subject to nonfinancial audits. We first address comments that identified issues pertaining to the primary scope of the proposed rule: (1) The role of interested persons; (2) appropriate informal procedures; and (3) the application of the proposed regulations to reliability audits. Next, we address comments suggesting changes to the proposed regulatory text. Finally, we address comments regarding the conduct of audits and related matters. Although these comments are beyond the scope of the issues set forth in the NOPR, the Commission believes that a discussion of these comments will add clarity to the agency's enforcement program. A. The Role of Interested Entities
8. The proposed rule states that ``any other interested entities'' may submit memoranda in the shortened procedure. Similarly, the existing rule makes provision for filing by ``any other parties interested.''
9. Several commenters address whether anyone other than the audited person and the Commission staff should be able to file memoranda in the shortened procedure. For example, EEI comments that neither the proposed rule nor the Commission's regulations define the term ``any other interested entities.'' EEI asserts that historically only utility customers have intervened in contested proceedings concerning financial audits. EEI states that operational audits, in most cases, do not present rate implications, and that therefore there is no reason to permit other interested entities to file memoranda in the shortened procedure in matters involving operational audits. EEI also expresses the concern that an entity other than the audited person or Commission staff that files a memorandum in the shortened procedure could arguably be entitled to obtain in discovery nonpublic information pertaining to the underlying audit. EEI further seeks clarification regarding whether an interested entity may appeal the findings of an operational audit.\17\
\17\ EEI initial comments at 1617.
10. The Indicated New York Transmission Owners likewise comment
that the Commission should clarify the role of ``other interested
persons'' in the contested audit proceeding.\18\ Ameren comments that
allowing interventions would jeopardize the controlled and confidential
process that has traditionally allowed audited persons and the
Commission staff to address compliance issues.\19\ INGAA expresses the
concern that, because any interested person could intervene in the
shortened procedure and raise new facts or allegations or proposals for new remedies, an audited person should be
able to change its election from shortened procedure to trialtype proceeding for good cause shown in light of any new issues raised.\20\ Finally, APGA comments that an interested entity should be able to participate in the decision of whether a shortened procedure or a trialtype hearing will be used to determine contested audit matters, and that the rights of interested entities should be strengthened.\21\ \18\ Indicated New York Transmission Owners initial comments at 34.
\19\ Ameren initial comments at 34.
\20\ INGAA initial comments at 23.
\21\ APGA initial comments at 4.
2. Commission Determination
11. In this Final Rule, as is now the case in financial audits, the
Commission will permit other interested entities to file memoranda in
the shortened procedure. An entity other than the audited person may
have an interest in the outcome of the contested audit proceeding and
may have information about the audited person's operations or proposed
remedy that would inform the Commission's determination regarding the
contested issue. The Commission will use the same standard for
permitting interested entities to file memoranda in the shortened
procedure as it uses to permit interventions in other proceedings.\22\
In addition, an interested entity may include in its initial memorandum
filed pursuant to the shortened procedure a motion to intervene in the proceeding.\23\
\22\ See 18 CFR 385.214(b) (2005).
\23\ If an interested entity is granted intervention, that entity will obtain party status with all the ensuing rights and responsibilities of a party.
12. The Final Rule defines the shortened procedure as consisting of the filing of two rounds of memoranda, and thus there will be no opportunity in this procedure for any interested entity to use the discovery process to obtain information from the audited person.\24\ By permitting interested entities to file memoranda in the shortened procedure, the Commission is not affecting the nonpublic conduct of the audit that includes communications between the audited person and the Commission staff regarding compliance issues. The interested entity that files memoranda in the shortened procedure will have access only to publicly available filings and not to any nonpublic communications. \24\ With respect to discovery in a trialtype proceeding conducted pursuant to the Final Rule, the applicable standards under part 385 of the Commission's regulations will apply. The presiding administrative law judge will rule on discovery procedures and motions as in other contested hearings.
13. The Commission adopts in part INGAA's suggestion that an audited person be permitted to change its election of the shortened procedure in favor of a trialtype procedure for good cause shown after an interested entity files a memorandum in the shortened procedure that raises a new matter. Within 20 days after the last date that reply memoranda under the shortened procedure may be timely filed, the audited person who elected the shortened procedure may file a motion with the Commission requesting a trialtype hearing if new issues are raised by a party. To prevail in such a motion, the audited person must show that a party to the shortened procedure raised one or more new issues of material fact relevant to resolution of a matter in the shortened procedure such that fundamental fairness requires a trial type hearing to resolve the new issue or issues so raised. Parties to the shortened procedure and the Commission staff may file responses to the motion. In ruling upon the motion, the Commission may determine that some or all of the issues be litigated in a trialtype hearing. Further, the Commission can also set a matter for hearing sua sponte, if warranted.
14. The Commission declines to adopt APGA's suggestion that the Commission permit an interested entity to participate in the initial election of the shortened procedure or the trialtype hearing. The election belongs to the audited person. The election provides the audited person a voice in how it may contest audit findings with which it disagrees. We conclude that the best approach is to permit the audited person to make the election for the shortened procedure or the trialtype election alone, subject to the requirement, as stated in the proposed rule, that the Commission will honor that election except when there are no material facts in dispute requiring a trialtype hearing. B. Informal Procedures
15. In the NOPR, the Commission invited public comments on whether the Commission should also provide informal procedures before proceeding with the formal procedures contained in the NOPR.\25\ \25\ NOPR at P 11.
16. A number of commenters express support for the continuation of
informal contacts between the audit staff and the audited person during
the course of the audit and up to the point where the audited person
informs audit staff in writing that the audited person contests one or
more audit findings or proposed remedies.\26\ Commenters also provide
suggestions for additional informal procedures. EEI urges the
Commission to provide for a mechanism by which the audited company may
raise a concern with the management of the audit staff. EEI further
states that it would support an additional informal procedure to
resolve disputes after an audit concludes but before the shortened
procedure or the trialtype hearing begins.\27\ Ameren comments in
favor of an additional informal procedure that would provide the
audited person an opportunity to review draft audit findings and
discuss those findings with audit staff.\28\ Williston Basin comments
that an informal audit conference would allow the audited person to
resolve issues without incurring the expense of more formal
procedures.\29\ APGA notes the ``longstanding practice'' of the audit
staff engaging in informal contacts and discussions with audited
persons, but requests that the Commission explicitly state that only
formal contacts may occur between the audit staff and the audited person with respect to the substance of any audit.\30\
\26\See EEI initial comments at 2021; LG&E initial comments at 3.
\27\EEI initial comments at 21.
\28\Ameren initial comments at 7.
\29\Williston Basin initial comments at 34.
\30\APGA initial comments at 3.
2. Commission Determination
17. The Commission agrees with the commenters that asserted that informal discussions between the audited person and audit staff are useful and should continue where they are appropriate. Nothing in the Final Rule is intended to discourage these informal contacts. While it is not clear precisely what APGA means by ``formal contacts,'' requiring such contacts, as APGA suggests, would unduly impede the flow of communication between audit staff and an audited person that is essential to understand company records and the Commission therefore rejects this suggestion.
18. The Commission also does not see a compelling need to establish
a specific informal procedure. An audited person may request to speak
with management of the audit staff at any time during an audit up to
the time that it indicates in writing that it contests specified
findings or proposed remedies.\31\ An audited person may contact
management of the audit staff directly or through the audit staff.
Informal resolution of issues that arise in audits is in the public
interest. Furthermore, a specific informal procedure is not necessary to provide an audited person
an opportunity to comment on a draft audit report. Under the audit staff's current practice, at the end of the audit process the audit staff provides an audited person a draft audit report for review and comment. Audit staff considers these comments and discusses them with the audited person. Finally, an audited person is routinely provided an audit conference at the end of the audit process to try to resolve disputed issues or clarify points that the audited person believes are not clear. At this ``wrapup'' conference, the audited person may discuss with the audit staff and its management proposed audit findings and proposed remedies, as well as information provided to staff in the audit and the application of that information to applicable law.\32\ The wrapup conference is similar to the meeting that EEI described in its comments. The availability of a wrapup conference ensures that the questions and concerns of audited persons are meaningfully addressed and obviates the need for the Commission to promulgate a specific informal procedure.
\31\ For an explanation of how staff conducts an audit, see http://www.ferc.gov/legal/majordreg/landdocs/order2004/resources.asp .
\32\ Audit staff will provide the audit report, notice of deficiency or similar document before it is made public. The wrapup conference is also described on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/majordreg/landdocs/order2004/resources.asp .
C. Reliability Audits
19. Two commenters ask whether the proposed rule would apply to reliability audits.\33\
\33\ See EEI initial comments at 1920; and Indicated New York Transmission Owners initial comments at 4.
2. Commission Determination
20. The Final Rule will apply to all audits conducted by Commission staff except for ERO Audits. A little background regarding ERO Audits will provide useful context. Order No. 672 was promulgated under the authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).\34\ Section 1211 of the EPAct 2005 amended the FPA by adding a new section 215 on electric reliability. FPA section 215(e) establishes an Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) with authority to impose a penalty under certain circumstances on a user, owner or operator of the bulkpower system for violation of a reliability standard approved by the Commission. FPA section 215(e) also authorizes the Commission, on its own motion or upon complaint, to order compliance with a reliability standard and to impose a penalty against a user or owner or operator of the bulkpower system.
\34\ Public Law 10958, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
21. Any audit or review of compliance with reliability standards
conducted by an ERO will, by definition, not be an audit conducted by
the Commission. Accordingly, the procedures set forth in the Final Rule
will not apply to audits or compliance reviews conducted by an ERO. In
addition, audits that are expressly conducted by the Commission staff
pursuant to the provisions of Order No. 672 will not be subject to the
procedures contained in the Final Rule. The Commission is excluding ERO
Audits from the scope of the Final Rule because aspects of the
Commission's program with respect to such audits remain to be
determined. The Commission may reconsider this decision after an ERO is certified.
D. Right To Challenge Audit Findings or Proposed Remedies
22. Ameren and EEI point out that in the NOPR the Commission
referred to audit findings and proposed remedies collectively as audit
matters and seeks assurance that an audited person may use the
procedures set forth in the proposed regulations to challenge either an audit finding, or a proposed remedy, or both.\35\
\35\ Ameren initial comments at 78; EEI initial comments at 17 18.
2. Commission Determination
23. A situation may occur in which an audited person does not
challenge a finding that it violated a Commission requirement, but the
audited person does not agree with the remedial measure associated with
the finding. In this situation, the audited person may wish to
challenge the audit report, deficiency report, or other document with
respect to the proposed remedy alone. The NOPR did not clearly specify
that an audited person may challenge just the proposed remedy. The
Commission clarifies that an audited person may do so, and the
regulatory text is modified accordingly to clearly state that an
audited person may challenge one or more audit findings, or one or more proposed remedies, or both, in any combination.
E. Time Frames
24. EEI notes that under the proposed section 41.1, the Commission shall provide the audited person a specified number of days to respond with respect to disputed audit matters. EEI also notes that the Commission did not specify the number of days in section 41.3 that an audited person will have to file memoranda pursuant to the shortened procedure. EEI urges that the Commission specify in sections 41.1 and 41.2 that an audited person shall have 30 days to respond to a Commission order that notes, but does not address on the merits, one or more disputed findings or proposed remedies. EEI also urges that the Commission specify in section 41.3 that initial memoranda be filed within 45 days and that reply memoranda be filed 20 days later.\36\ \36\ EEI initial comments at 18. AOPL also advocated that specific filing time periods be provided. AOPL initial comments at 23.
2. Commission Determination
25. The Commission accepts EEI's recommended changes with respect
to the noted time limits for filings. The existing section 41.1 does
not specify a time period for an audited person to respond to the
Commission with respect to a noticed finding or proposed remedy with
which he or she may disagree. Specifying the number of days for the
noted filings will promote certainty. Therefore, the Commission will
change the regulatory text to indicate the number of days for making
the noted filings.\37\ Specifically, section 41.1 will indicate that an
audited person will have 30 days to respond with respect to a disputed
audit matter. Section 41.3 will indicate that initial memoranda must be
filed within 45 days and reply memoranda must be filed 20 days later.\38\
\37\ Under the Commission's existing authority, it retains the right to modify the time limits in appropriate circumstances. \38\ Conforming changes are made in 18 CFR 158.1, 158.3, 286.103, 286.105, 349.1 and 349.3.
F. Excision of Certain References in Part 349
26. AOPL notes that the proposed section 349.1, which would apply
to oil pipelines, provides that an audit may result in findings that an
audited person has not complied with the Commission's requirements
under the Standards of Conduct or the Code of Conduct, and that these requirements do not apply to oil pipelines.\39\
\39\ AOPL initial comments at 3.
2. Commission Determination
27. The referenced requirements do not apply to oil pipelines.
Accordingly, to avoid confusion, the Commission shall excise the phrase
``matters under the Standards of Conduct or the Code of Conduct'' from the regulatory text of section 349.1 in the Final Rule.
G. The Commission May Take ``Other Action''
28. Williston Basin requests that the Commission remove the phrase ``or taking other action'' from proposed sections 41.2, 158.2, 286.104 and 349.2 because it appears to give the Commission the opportunity to change the findings or proposed remedies or possibly to take other action inconsistent with the original findings and proposed remedies. The relevant language reads as follows: ``Upon issuance of a Commission order that notes a finding or findings, with or without proposed remedies, with which the audited person has disagreed, the audited person may: Acquiesce in the findings and proposed remedies by not timely responding to the Commission order, in which case the Commission may issue an order approving them or taking other action * * *.'' 2. Commission Determination
29. The Commission declines to remove the words ``or taking other action'' as Williston Basin requests. These words are needed to permit the Commission flexibility to decline to adopt the finding or findings or proposed remedy or remedies to which the audited person acquiesced by not timely filing the required document. The Commission may revise an audit report even where there is no party challenging the contents of that report because the Commission must always discharge its obligation to act consistent with the public interest according to its statutory authority.\40\ An audited person who believes it is aggrieved by a Commission order that changes an audit report in the circumstances Williston Basin describes may seek rehearing of the Commission order. \40\ For this reason, the Commission may revise or reject an uncontested settlement. See Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, 95 F.3d 62, 64 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (``[W]e have held that the Commission should approve an uncontested settlement `only upon a finding that the settlement appears to be fair and reasonable and in the public interest.' '' (Citation omitted.)); Alternative Dispute Resolution, Order No. 578, 60 FR 19494 (Apr. 19, 1995), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,018 at 31,331 (1995) (``[T]he Commission may refashion an uncontested settlement to comport with the public interest * * *.''); Carolina Power & Light Company, 51 FERC ] 61,403 (1990) (The Commission rejected a provision of an uncontested settlement). H. Other Issues
30. A number of commenters assert that a lack of clear rules causes them to be surprised by new and changing regulatory requirements. Despite good faith attempts at compliance, these commenters state, they are subject to a ``gotcha'' approach to auditing that forces them to meet ``moving target'' requirements. As noted above, while these and similar comments regarding the audit process are outside the scope of the proposed rule, the Commission believes that addressing them will provide greater clarity to the agency's enforcement program. 1. Precedential Value of Audit Findings
31. Several commenters ask the Commission to clarify whether audit
reports, settlements and orders on contested audit matters constitute
binding precedent for nonparties. EEI states that the Commission must
provide an opportunity for comment with respect to any requirement set
forth in an audit report, settlement or order on a contested audit
matter that the Commission proposes to make generally applicable.\41\
APGA asks the Commission to explain the precedential value of an audit
finding.\42\ Ameren urges that if the Commission seeks to impose
requirements or remedies imposed in an individual audit proceeding on
the regulated community in general, the Commission should proceed by a
separate generic proceeding that provides notice to the public and the
opportunity to comment.\43\ PNMTNMP comments that the settlement of an
audit or investigation should not have precedential effect except as to the settling entity.\44\
\41\ EEI initial comments at 67.
\42\ APGA initial comments at 3.
\43\ Ameren initial comments at 3.
\44\ PNMTNMP initial comments at 3.
b. Commission Determination
32. Unless the Commission expressly states it is making findings
that apply to other parties, an audit report and a Commission order
approving an uncontested audit report are not binding on entities other
than the audited person or persons who agreed not to contest the audit
report that the Commission approved. To this extent, such an order,
like an order approving an uncontested settlement, does not have
precedential value.\45\ The Commission routinely makes this point in
orders it issues approving stipulation and consent agreements in part
1b investigations.\46\ An uncontested audit report is similar to a
stipulation and consent agreement to the extent that the audited person
consents to the contents of the audit report. By contrast, a Commission
order to resolve a contested matter does have precedential effect.\47\
An audited person that selects the shortened procedure or the trial
type hearing to resolve a dispute regarding an audit staff finding or
remedy is participating in a contested, ontherecord proceeding, and,
like any other such proceeding before the Commission, the legal
reasoning and conclusions of the resulting order apply to nonparties.
The Commission has substantial discretion to establish rules of general
application by adjudication and need not necessarily employ a separate generic proceeding.\48\
\45\ See, e.g., United Municipal Distributors Group v. FERC, 732 F.2d 202, 207 n. 8 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (``The Commission's regulations thus permit it to approve uncontested offers of settlement without a determination on the merits that the rates approved are `just and resonable.' The Commission's approval of an uncontested settlement has no precedential value as settled practice.''); New York Power Authority, 105 FERC ] 61,102 at P 87 (2003) (``It is well
established that settlements have no precedential value.''). See also Kelley v. FERC, 96 F.3d 1482, 1490 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (collecting cases).
\46\ See. e.g., The Willliams Companies, 111 FERC ] 61,392 at 62,651 (2005) (``The Commission's approval of the Agreement does not constitute precedent regarding any principle or issue in any proceeding.'').
\47\ See, e.g., Enbridge Pipelines (KPC), 102 FERC ] 61,310 at n. 74 (2003) (a Commission order approving a contested settlement is a legal precedent of the Commission).
\48\ NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Corp., 416 U.S. 267, 294 (1974) (``[A]djudicative cases may and do serve as vehicles for the formulation of agency policies.''); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 203 (1947) (``[T]he choice made between proceeding by general rule or by individual, ad hoc litigation is one that lies primarily in the informed discretion of the administrative agency.''); MichiganWisconsin Pipeline Co. v. FPC, 520 F.2d 84, 89 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (``[T]here is no question that the Commission may attach precedential and even controlling weight to principles developed in one proceeding and then apply them under appropriate circumstances in a stare decisis manner.''); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. FPC, 506 F.2d 33, 38 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (``[A]gency may establish binding policy through rulemaking procedures * * * or through adjudications which constitute binding precedents.''); AEP Power Marketing, Inc., 108 FERC ] 61,026 at P 187 (2004) (``Our decision to establish new policy in the context of casespecific proceedings is clearly within our authority.''); Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility MarketBased Rate Authorizations, 103 FERC ] 61,349 at P 51 (2003) (``The Commission, moreover, is not limited to notice and comment rulemaking to develop policy. Agencies generally are permitted considerable discretion to choose whether to proceed by rulemaking or by adjudication.'').
2. Cooperation With Audit Staff
33. Some commenters ask the Commission to clarify a number of
issues regarding cooperation of audited persons. EEI asserted that it
should not be considered a lack of cooperation for a company being
audited to seek to narrow the scope of information requests. EEI
requests that the Commission clarify whether the discussions with staff of this nature
would indicate a lack of cooperation.\49\ EEI and Ameren also ask the Commission to clarify that it does not demonstrate a lack of cooperation to assert the attorneyclient privilege in good faith.\50\ \49\ EEI initial comments at 1214.
\50\ EEI initial comments at 14; Ameren initial comments at 5. b. Commission Determination
34. On October 20, 2005, the Commission issued a policy statement
to provide guidance and regulatory certainty regarding the agency's
enforcement of the statutes, orders, rules and regulations it
administers.\51\ The Policy Statement addressed the factors the
Commission will take into account in determining remedies for
violations, including applying the enhanced civil penalty authority
provided by EPAct 2005. The Commission stressed that one of these
factors would be cooperation, which was discussed in a general sense
\52\ and described with respect to specific factors.\53\ The Commission
also addressed qualitative factors, such as wholehearted cooperation
and cooperation with respect to certain aspects yet not with
others.\54\ In addition, the Commission listed conduct that would indicate a lack of cooperation.\55\
\51\ Enforcement of Statutes, Orders, Rules, and Regulations, 113 FERC ] 61,068 (2005).
\52\ 113 FERC ] 61,068 at n.2.
\53\ Id. at P 26.
\54\ Id. at P 27.
35. In sum, the Policy Statement set forth that the Commission
expects cooperation, that the Commission will give consideration to
exemplary cooperation, i.e., ``cooperation which quickly ends wrongful
conduct, determines the facts, and corrects a problem,'' \56\ and that
a lack of cooperation would be weighed in deciding appropriate remedies
for noncompliance.\57\ The Commission did not suggest that efforts by
an audited person taken in good faith to resolve issues that arise in
the course of an audit would be construed as evidence of non
cooperation. Where an audited person believes that data requests create
a substantial burden that could be relieved by limiting the scope of
the request, by the audited person providing other information that
would achieve the same purpose, or by some other resolution that would
satisfy audit staff, an audited person is not failing to cooperate if
it suggests changes to, or narrowing of, the data requests. Similarly,
an audited person who appropriately interposes the attorneyclient
privilege will not be considered noncooperative. However, the
interposition of the privilege where it does not apply and that is
designed to frustrate audit staff's efforts to obtain information could be evidence of noncooperation.
\56\ Id. at P 26.
\57\ Id. at P 2627.
3. Public Treatment of Contested Audit Matters
36. Two commenters ask the Commission to keep information regarding
contested audit matters confidential. Ameren asserts that the
Commission should ensure that all contested audit proceedings remain
completely confidential until a final Commission determination has been
made. Ameren also asks the Commission to clarify that, if an audited
company challenges any of the audit staff's proposed findings under the
contested audit procedures, the Commission not issue a notice or other
statement releasing any proposed staff findings or remedies to the
public. Instead, Ameren urges that any additional paper or formal
hearing procedures on the contested audit findings should be kept
confidential until a final determination is made by the Commission.
Ameren notes that the public release of proposed remedies could have an
immediate and harmful impact on the audited person's stock price or
credit rating.\58\ Williston Basin asks the Commission to clarify that
the notice setting a schedule for the filing of memoranda be non public.\59\
\58\ Ameren initial comments at 56.
\59\ Williston Basin initial comments at 6.
b. Commission Determination
37. All Commission issuances regarding the resolution of contested audit matters under the Final Rule will be public. A brief statement of the relevant processes under the Final Rule at this juncture will help inform this discussion. In instances in which the audited person and the audit staff are unable to agree upon the findings and proposed remedies contained in a draft audit report, the following steps occur:
Administrative Law Judge, in the case of the trialtype hearing.
38. The Commission is aware that noticed findings or proposed
remedies may have financial consequences for an audited person. The
public has an appropriate interest, however, in seeing the Commission's
resolution of disputed, jurisdictional matters before it. Regulated
companies may need to be aware of Commission determinations regarding
disputed audit matters to comply with Commission requirements. Further,
the Commission must publicly notice the disputed audit findings or
proposed remedies to provide potential interested parties an
opportunity to determine whether to participate in the contested audit
procedures. The audited person's response and the Commission's notice
establishing a briefing schedule or beginning a trialtype hearing must
also be public to enable potential interested parties to participate in
the proceeding. Nevertheless, audited persons may seek to file
proprietary materials with a request for confidential treatment under section 388.112 of the
Commission's regulations.\60\ Parties appearing before the Commission and its administrative law judges may also seek protective orders to protect the confidentiality of information. These methods of keeping information nonpublic are adequate for the purposes of the Final Rule. \60\ 18 CFR 388.112 (2005).
4. Applicability of part 1b of the Commission's Regulations to Audits a. Comments
39. Three commenters request clarification regarding the role that
part 1b of the Commission's regulations plays in audits.\61\ These
commenters ask the Commission to clarify that any new rule will not
modify existing protections regarding investigations that are provided in part 1b of the Commission's regulations.\62\
\61\ 18 CFR part 1b (2005).
\62\ See Ameren initial comments at 7; EEI initial comments at 15; INGAA reply comments at 34, 7.
40. In addition, EEI states that audited persons are uncertain as to whether the operational audits constitute part 1b investigations or whether part 1b investigations are separate and apart from the operational audits and the proposed procedures. EEI asserts that if audits are not conducted pursuant to part 1b, the Commission must establish procedures that define the rights of an audited person. In particular, EEI claims that new procedures are needed to both ensure the confidentiality of the audited person's proprietary or otherwise sensitive information during an audit and when the audited person contests the findings or remedies proposed by the audit staff. EEI calls on the Commission to issue a policy statement, with an opportunity for public comment, to establish the appropriate relationship between the audit staff and the enforcement staff during an audit, consistent with separations of functions requirements.\63\ EEI also seeks clarification regarding when audit staff may communicate with an audited person's employees without an attorney present and how the right to have an attorney present changes during the audit process, shortened and trialtype procedures, and part 1b investigations.\64\ \63\ EEI initial comments at 811.
\64\ EEI initial comments at 11.
41. INGAA also asks the Commission to clarify whether audits are
conducted under part 1b of its regulations.\65\ In addition, Ameren
asks the Commission to confirm that any new rule resulting from the
NOPR will not modify existing confidentiality protections that are provided in part 1b.\66\
\65\ INGAA reply comments at 34, 7.
\66\ Ameren initial comments at 7.
b. Commission Determination
42. Although not directly related to this rulemaking proceeding, we
address the concerns about the role of investigations with respect to
audits as part of the Commission's recent efforts to clarify its
enforcement program. Investigations and audits are distinct methods the
Commission uses to determine and address compliance with its
requirements. Part 1b applies to investigations and not to audits.\67\
Audits are conducted pursuant to the authority conferred in FPA section
301,\68\ NGA section 8,\69\ NGPA section 504 \70\ and ICA sections 20
and 204(a)(6).\71\ The Commission's audit staff routinely informs the
subject of an audit in an initial letter that an audit has commenced
pursuant to specific statutory authority. Similarly, the Commission's
enforcement staff routinely informs the subject of an investigation in
an initial letter that an investigation has commenced pursuant to part
1b of the Commission's regulations. The Commission's practice is that
audits begin with issuance of a public commencement letter and end with
issuance of a public audit report. By contrast, investigations
undertaken pursuant to part 1b begin and end without notice to the
public, unless the Commission orders otherwise. The Final Rule will not affect investigations conducted under part 1b.
\67\ 18 CFR 1b.2 (2005).
\68\ 16 U.S.C. 825 (2000).
\69\ 15 U.S.C. 717g (2000).
\70\ 15 U.S.C. 3415 (2000).
\71\ 49 U.S.C. App. 20 and 204(a)(6) (2000).
43. It is not necessary, as EEI asserts, for the Commission to
establish new procedures that define the rights of audited persons to
ensure the confidentiality of the audited person's sensitive
information. Audited persons provide information to the audit staff on
a nonpublic basis. In that regard, the FPA specifies that ``[n]o
member, officer, or employee of the Commission shall divulge any fact
or information which may come to his knowledge during the course of
examination of books or other accounts, as hereinbefore provided,
except insofar as he may be directed by the Commission or by a court.'' \72\
\72\ See FPA section 301(b), 16 U.S.C. 825(b) (2000). See also NGA section 8(b), 15 U.S.C. 717g(b) (2000). The Commission's regulations reiterate that requirement. 18 CFR 3c.2(a) (2005).
44. No new procedures are required to establish the relationship
between audit staff and enforcement staff. Information obtained in an
audit may be shared with Commission staff conducting a related
investigation.\73\ This sharing is appropriate to effectively enforce
compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations. This sharing of
information promotes efficiency; it would be pointless to require an
audited person to produce the same information twice. Further, the
knowledge that an audit may lead to an investigation should encourage
entities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction to volunteer the
existence of violations and to cooperate to the maximum extent practicable to expose and remedy misconduct promptly.\74\
\73\ Trans Alaska Pipeline System, 9 FERC ] 61,205 (1979). See also The House Committee Report on the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94409 (1976), which amended the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. (2000), discussing the scope of ex parte prohibitions, states in part that ``[t]he rule forbids ex parte communications between interested persons outside the agency and agency decisionmakers * * *. Communications solely between agency employees are excluded from the section's prohibitions.'' 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2183, 2202.
\74\ Enforcement of Statutes, Orders, Rules, and Regulations, 113 FERC ] 61,068 at P 2627 (2005).
45. The Commission has explained that the same person on its staff
may perform more than one function ``provided (1) such combination
enhances the Commission's understanding of energy markets and related
issues; and (2) parties in individual proceedings appear to and
actually receive a fair and impartial adjudication of their claims.''
\75\ The Commission has further specified that ``[u]nless an
investigator is assigned to serve as a litigator, she may freely speak
to persons inside the Commission about an investigation * * *.'' \76\
The same observation holds true for an auditor, or, indeed, for a
person on Commission staff who works on audits and investigations.
Prior to a matter becoming an ontherecord proceeding, i.e., while it
is still an audit or investigation, the separations of functions rule
set forth in section 2202 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure \77\ does not apply.\78\ Of course, if the Commission permits
an interested entity to intervene in the shortened procedure with
respect to a disputed issue, the Commission's ex parte rule would apply.\79\
\75\ Separation of Functions, 101 FERC ] 61,340 at P 1 (2002). \76\ Id. at P 26.
\77\ 18 CFR 385.2202 (2005).
\78\ 101 FERC ] 61,340 at P 26.
\79\ 18 CFR 385.2201 (2005).
46. Finally, with respect to EEI's request for clarification
regarding when an attorney may be present during employee interviews, the Commission
agrees that an audited person's employees may have counsel present at any time, during any part of an audit.
5. Best Practices
47. Several commenters express concern about the role of ``best
practices'' in the audit process. EEI states that the audit staff has
developed and utilized a nonpublic list of best practices in its
audits for Standards of Conduct and Code of Conduct compliance. EEI
further states that best practices are not necessarily regulatory
requirements and that on a costbenefits basis, best practices may not
be warranted.\80\ Ameren states that audit reports have recommended
certain best practices for Standards of Conduct compliance even though
the actual rules do not require that companies use these practices to
comply with the Standards of Conduct.\81\ PNMTNMP states that the
audit staff comments and previously issued audit reports should not be a basis for a best practices requirement.\82\
\80\ EEI initial comments at 46.
\81\ Ameren initial comments at 3.
\82\ PNMTNMP initial comments at 3.
b. Commission Determination
48. The Commission acknowledges that because a practice was successfully implemented by one audited person does not necessarily mean that practice will be a good fit elsewhere. Practices that companies implement to improve compliance may serve as useful references, but they are not binding on others. For example, experience has shown that the taking of minutes at meetings in which transmission function and energy affiliate employees are present may be useful to address and prevent Standards of Conduct violations. However, taking minutes at such meetings is not a requirement. For some audited persons, the presence of a compliance officer may be sufficient, or other measures may be adopted that are equally effective. There is often not a onesizefitsall response to help ensure compliance. The Commission does not intend to bind all companies to adhere to a remedy that one company may have adopted. A person need only comply with Commission requirements.
49. The staff does not have a nonpublic list of best practices as
EEI suggests. The audit staff, however, has observed a broad array of
company practices that address and prevent violations of Commission
requirements with varying degrees of effectiveness. Some of these
company practices are reflected in Frequently Answered Questions (FAQs)
on the Commission's Web site.\83\ There, the Commission staff has
provided detailed responses to many FAQs about the process and
substance of financial and operational audits. These responses include
company practices that may be appropriate in some circumstances. They are not, however, intended to be new legal requirements.
\83\ http:/www.ferc.gov/legal/majordreg/landdocs/standcond/standcondfaqs.pdf .
6. Audit Cycles
50. LG&E encourages the Commission to consider promulgating audit
cycles for most of what LG&E refers to as the Commission's ``standard''
audits. For example, LG&E suggests that compliance with wholesale fuel adjustment clauses might occur on a threeyear cycle.\84\
\84\ LG&E initial comments at 34.
b. Commission Determination
51. The Commission declines to adopt LG&E's suggestion. The audit
staff does not necessarily commence audits based on a schedule. The
audit staff selects companies and subjects to audit based on a variety of factors.
7. Auditing Standards
52. LG&E encourages the Commission to develop or adopt auditing standards for all audits.
b. Commission Determination
53. The audit staff adheres to auditing standards.\85\ The audit
staff follows Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards as
prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States.\86\
\85\ Government Auditing Standards, 2003 Version issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, June 2003.
\86\ http://www.gao.gov/govaud/yb2003.pdf. IV. Information Collection Statement
54. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB
to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rule.\87\ The Final Rule does not contain any information
collection requirements and compliance with the OMB regulations is thus not required.
\87\ 5 CFR 11320.12 (2005).
V. Environmental Analysis
55. 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.\88\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\89\ The Final Rule is
procedural in nature and therefore falls under this exception; consequently, no environmental consideration is necessary.
\88\ Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987) (Codified at 18 CFR part 380 (2005)). \89\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2005).
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
56. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 \90\ generally requires
a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Commission is not required to make such analyses if a rule would not
have such an effect. The Commission certifies that the Final Rule will
not have such an impact on small entities. The Final Rule is procedural
only, expands due process rights of certain audited persons and does
not involve additional filing or recordkeeping requirements or any
similar burden. By providing an additional due process opportunity, the Commission has enhanced benefits to small entities.
\90\ 5 U.S.C. 601612 (2000).
VII. Document Availability
57. 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 FERC's home page http://www.ferc.gov and the FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
58. From FERC's home page on the Internet, this information is available in the Commission's document management system, 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.
59. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at 18662083676 (toll free) or
2025026652 (email at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov), or the Public Reference Room at 2025028371, TTY 2025028659 (email at
VIII. Effective Date
60. These regulations are effective March 29, 2006.
61. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 801 regarding Congressional review
of Final Rules does not apply to the Final Rule because the rule
concerns agency procedure and practice and will not substantively affect the rights of nonagency parties.
List of Subjects
18 CFR Part 41
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping, Uniform System of Accounts.
18 CFR Part 158
Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.
18 CFR Part 286
Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Price controls. 18 CFR Part 349
Administrative practice and procedure, Pipelines.
By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 41, 158 and 286, and adds part 349, Chapter I, Title 18, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 41ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA AND DISPOSITION OF CONTESTED AUDIT FINDINGS AND PROPOSED REMEDIES
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a825r, 26012645; 42 U.S.C. 71017352.
2. The heading of part 41 is revised to read as set forth above.
3. Sections 41.1, 41.2 and 41.3 and the undesignated center heading preceding them are revised to read as follows:
Disposition of Contested Audit Findings and Proposed Remedies Sec. 41.1 Notice to audited person.
(a) Applicability. This part applies to all audits conducted by the Commission or its staff under authority of the Federal Power Act except for Electric Reliability Organization audits conducted pursuant to the authority of part 39 of this chapter.
(b) Notice. An audit conducted by the Commission's staff under authority of the Federal Power Act may result in a notice of deficiency or audit report or similar document containing a finding or findings that the audited person has not complied with a requirement of the Commission with respect to, but not limited to, the following: A filed tariff or tariffs, contracts, data, records, accounts, books, communications or papers relevant to the audit of the audited person; matters under the Standards of Conduct or the Code of Conduct; and the activities or operations of the audited person. The notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document may also contain one or more proposed remedies that address findings of noncompliance. Where such findings, with or without proposed remedies, appear in a notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document, such document shall be provided to the audited person, and the finding or findings, and any proposed remedies, shall be noted and explained. The audited person shall timely indicate in a written response any and all findings or proposed remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person disagrees. Any initial order that the Commission subsequently may issue with respect to the notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document shall note, but not address on the merits, the finding or findings, or the proposed remedy or remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person disagreed. The Commission shall provide the audited person 30 days to respond with respect to the finding or findings or any proposed remedy or remedies, or both, in any combination, with which it disagreed.
Sec. 41.2 Response to notification.
Upon issuance of a Commission order that notes a finding or findings, or proposed remedy or remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person has disagreed, the audited person may: Acquiesce in the findings and/or proposed remedies by not timely responding to the Commission order, in which case the Commission may issue an order approving them or taking other action; or challenge the finding or findings and/or any proposed remedies, with which it disagreed by timely notifying the Commission in writing that it requests Commission review by means of a shortened procedure or, if there are material facts in dispute which require crossexamination, a trialtype hearing.
Sec. 41.3 Shortened procedure.
If the audited person subject to a Commission order described in
Sec. 41.1 notifies the Commission that it seeks to challenge one or
more audit findings, or proposed remedies, or both, in any combination,
by the shortened procedure, the Commission shall thereupon issue a
notice setting a schedule for the filing of memoranda. The person
electing the use of the shortened procedure, and any other interested
entities, including the Commission staff, shall file, within 45 days of
the notice, an initial memorandum that addresses the relevant facts and
applicable law that support the position or positions taken regarding
the matters at issue. Reply memoranda shall be filed within 20 days of
the date by which the initial memoranda are due to be filed. Only
participants who filed initial memoranda may file reply memoranda.
Subpart T of part 385 of this chapter shall apply to all filings.
Within 20 days after the last date that reply memoranda under the
shortened procedure may be timely filed, the audited person who elected
the shortened procedure may file a motion with the Commission
requesting a trialtype hearing if new issues are raised by a party. To
prevail in such a motion, the audited person must show that a party to
the shortened procedure raised one or more new issues of material fact
relevant to resolution of a matter in the shortened procedure such that
fundamental fairness requires a trialtype hearing to resolve the new
issue or issues so raised. Parties to the shortened procedure and the
Commission staff may file responses to the motion. In ruling upon the
motion, the Commission may determine that some or all of the issues be litigated in a trialtype hearing.
PART 158ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA AND DISPOSITION OF CONTESTED AUDIT FINDINGS AND PROPOSED REMEDIES
4. The authority citation for part 158 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717717w, 33013432; 42 U.S.C. 71027352.
5. The heading of part 158 is revised to read as set forth above.
6. Sections 158.1, 158.2 and 158.3 and the undesignated center heading preceding them are revised to read as follows:
Disposition of Contested Audit Findings and Proposed Remedies Sec. 158.1 Notice to audited person.
An audit conducted by the Commission's staff under authority of the Natural Gas Act may result in a notice of deficiency or audit report or similar document containing a finding or findings that the audited person has not complied with a requirement of the Commission with respect to, but not limited to, the following: A filed tariff or tariffs, contracts, data, records, accounts, books, communications or papers relevant to the audit of the audited person; matters under the Standards of Conduct or the Code of Conduct; and the activities or operations of the audited person. The notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document may also contain one or more proposed remedies that address findings of noncompliance. Where such findings, with or without proposed remedies, appear in a notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document, such document shall be provided to the audited person, and the finding or findings, and any proposed remedies, shall be noted and explained. The audited person shall timely indicate in a written response any and all findings or proposed remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person disagrees. Any initial order that the Commission subsequently may issue with respect to the notice of deficiency, audit report or similar document shall note, but not address on the merits, the finding or findings, or the proposed remedy or remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person disagreed. The Commission shall provide the audited person 30 days to respond with respect to the finding or findings or any proposed remedy or remedies, or both, in any combination, with which it disagreed.
Sec. 158.2 Response to notification.
Upon issuance of a Commission order that notes a finding or findings, or proposed remedy or remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person has disagreed, the audited person may: Acquiesce in the findings and/or proposed remedies by not timely responding to the Commission order, in which case the Commission may issue an order approving them or taking other action; or challenge the finding or findings and/or any proposed remedi
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
John Kroeger, Office of Market
Oversight and Investigations, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 5028177,