[Federal Register: November 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 66378-66382]
[DOCID:fr02no05-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL06-1-000]

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Nora Mead
Brownell, and Suedeen G. Kelly; Enforcement of Statutes, Orders, Rules,
and Regulations; Policy Statement on Enforcement

Issued October 20, 2005.
    1. The Commission issues this Policy Statement to provide guidance
and regulatory certainty regarding our enforcement of the statutes,
orders, rules, and regulations we administer. The Policy Statement
discusses the factors we will take into account in determining remedies
for violations, including applying the enhanced civil penalty authority
provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).\1\ Our purpose
is to provide firm but fair enforcement of our rules and regulations
and to place entities subject to our jurisdiction on notice of the
consequences of violating the statutes, orders, rules, and regulations
we enforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In discussing the factors we will take into account in
determining the severity of penalties to be imposed for violations, we
also recognize the importance of demonstrable compliance and
cooperation efforts by utilities, natural gas companies, and other
entities subject to the statutes, orders, rules, and regulations
administered by the Commission. We encourage regulated entities to have
comprehensive compliance programs, to develop a culture of compliance
within their organizations, and to self-report and cooperate with the
Commission in the event violations occur.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We will apply this policy statement on enforcement, and the
remedies available for any given violation, in the same manner for
jurisdictional market-based rate sellers, natural gas pipelines, and
holders of blanket certificate authority as well as for other
entities as described by EPAct 2005, including governmental
utilities and other market participants. We also note that the
factors will be applied, as appropriate, to individuals as well as
to corporate entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Contemporaneously herewith, we are issuing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in Docket No. RM06-3-000 (published in the Federal Register
October 27, 2005 (70 FR 61930)), proposing new regulations to implement
sections 315 and 1283 of EPAct 2005. The proposed regulations would
make it unlawful for any entity to use or employ any device, scheme, or
artifice to defraud, or to make any untrue statement of a material fact
or to omit to state a material fact, or to engage in a fraud or deceit
in connection with the purchase or sale of electricity, natural gas, or
related transmission or transportation services subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission. The proposed regulations will provide
another basis for imposition of civil penalties. It is therefore
important that we articulate how we intend to apply our new and
expanded civil penalty authority, so as to assure the industry that we
will temper strong enforcement measures with consideration of all
relevant factors, including mitigating factors, in determining the
appropriate remedies.

Background

    4. We have a variety of enforcement tools under the principal
statutes we administer: the Federal Power Act (FPA), Natural Gas Act
(NGA), Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), and Interstate Commerce
Act (ICA).\3\ If

regulated utilities and natural gas companies violate the FPA, NGA, or
NGPA we can order, among other things, disgorgement of unjust profits.
We have the option of conditioning, suspending, or revoking market-
based rate authority, certificate authority, or blanket certificate
authority.\4\ We also have the ability to refer matters to the
Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a, et seq. (2000); Natural
Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717, et seq. (2000); Natural Gas Policy Act of
1978, 15 U.S.C. 3301, et seq. (2000); Interstate Commerce Act, 49
App. U.S.C. 1, et seq. (2000).
    \4\ See, e.g., Enron Power Marketing, Inc., 103 FERC ] 61,343 P
52 (2003); Fact-Finding Investigation of Potential Manipulation of
Electric and Natural Gas Prices, 99 FERC ] 61,272 at 62,154 (2002);
San Diego Gas & Electric Company, 95 FERC ] 61,418 at 62,548, 62,565
(2001), order on reh'g, 97 FERC ] 61,275 (2001), order on reh'g, 99
FERC ] 61,160 (2002); accord Show Cause Order, 102 FERC ] 61,316 at
P 8 & n.10, and cases cited therein.
    \5\ NGA section 20(a), 15 U.S.C. 717s(a); FPA section 314(a), 16
U.S.C. 825m(a); NGPA section 504(b)(5),15 U.S.C. 3414(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Beyond these authorities, we have civil penalty authority for
violations of specific provisions of the FPA and NGPA.\6\ In EPAct 2005
Congress recently granted the Commission enhanced authority to assess
civil penalties for violations of the FPA, NGA, and NGPA. EPAct 2005
made three major changes to our civil penalty authority. First,
Congress expanded the Commission's FPA civil penalty authority to cover
violations of any provision of part II of the FPA, as well as of any
rule or order issued thereunder.\7\ Second, Congress extended the
Commission's civil penalty authority to cover violations of the NGA or
any rule, regulation, restriction, condition, or order made or imposed
by the Commission under NGA authority.\8\ Third, Congress established
the maximum civil penalty the Commission may assess under the NGA,
NGPA, or part II of the FPA as $1,000,000 per violation for each day
that it continues.\9\ In addition, Congress expanded the scope of the
criminal provisions of the FPA, NGA, and NGPA by increasing the maximum
fines and increasing the maximum imprisonment time.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FPA section 316A, 16 U.S.C. 825o-1; NGPA section 504(b)(6),
15 U.S.C. 3414(b)(6).
    \7\ EPAct 2005 section 1284(e)(1), amending FPA section 316A(a).
    \8\ EPAct 2005 section 314(b)(1), inserting new NGA section 22.
    \9\ EPAct 2005 section 314(b)(1), inserting new NGA section
22(a); EPAct 2005 section 314(b)(2), amending NGPA section
504(b)(6)(A); and EPAct 2005 section 1284(e)(2), amending FPA
section 316A(b).
    \10\ EPAct 2005 section 314, amending NGA section 21 and NGPA
section 504; EPAct 2005 section 1284, amending FPA section 316. We
are limited to civil enforcement of our statutes, orders, rules, and
regulations, but we may also refer matters to the Department of
Justice for criminal prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In our past enforcement actions we have given credit when
appropriate for cooperative conduct in audit and enforcement matters,
and orders issued in past matters have discussed aspects of
cooperation.\11\ With the advent of enhanced civil penalty authority,
we are making our existing practice of recognizing cooperation explicit
and describing some of the factors that we will consider when deciding
on remedies, including penalties, for violations. We also discuss the
importance of creating and maintaining effective internal compliance
processes, of self-reporting violations, and of cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Dominion Resources, Inc., ``Order Approving
Stipulation and Consent Agreement,'' 108 FERC ] 61,110 (2004)
(Stipulation noting that ``Dominion Resources voluntarily disclosed
these events to Enforcement in July 2003, virtually
contemporaneously with the discovery by the company. Dominion
Resources fully and completely cooperated with Enforcement's efforts
to investigate and resolve this matter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enforcement Policies of Other Agencies

    7. In considering the appropriate enforcement policy, we have
reviewed the policies of other Federal agencies for guidance. In 2001,
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a decision in which
it outlined conditions under which it will give credit for self-
policing, self-reporting, remediation, and cooperation when determining
the appropriate penalty for wrongdoing.\12\ The SEC noted the
importance of vigorous enforcement action and the imposition of
appropriate sanctions when violations occur, but also recognized the
value of cooperation by companies when violations occur. While not
making specific commitments or limiting itself to the criteria
discussed, the SEC provided a list of questions it would consider in
deciding whether to bring reduced or no charges, seek lighter
sanctions, or provide other mitigation of the severity of enforcement
remedies that would otherwise be sought for a violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Accounting and Auditing Enforcement, SEC Release No. 1470
(October 23, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In 2003, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum to all
United States Attorneys entitled ``Principles of Federal Prosecution of
Business Organizations,'' with guidance on charging corporate entities
along with individuals in corporate fraud cases.\13\ The memorandum
stated that credit may be given for corporate cooperation in detecting
and correcting wrongdoing, and outlined nine factors to be considered
when weighing whether to bring criminal charges against business
entities. In 2004, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were amended to
include a detailed discussion of effective compliance and ethics
programs and the impact that such programs can have on the calculation
of the culpability score used to determine the sentence to be imposed
after conviction of a corporation or other business entity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson
to Heads of Department Components and United States Attorneys,
``Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations''
(Jan. 20, 2003).
    \14\ Effective Compliance and Ethics Programs, Federal
Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter 8, Part B, Section 2 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. In 1994, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued
a policy statement with guidelines regarding the CFTC's authority to
impose civil penalties and the authority of CFTC-supervised, self-
regulating organizations to impose sanctions.\15\ The CFTC policy
statement set out various factors to be considered with respect to the
gravity of the offense, the financial condition of the business entity,
and various other considerations that may bear on the appropriate
penalty to be imposed. In 2004, the CFTC enforcement staff announced a
policy of giving credit for cooperation in futures trading
investigations.\16\ Noting that consideration of cooperation is
discretionary and depends on the circumstances presented, the CFTC
staff identified three general areas of cooperative factors to be taken
into account in deciding whether staff should recommend reduced
sanctions to the CFTC: (1) The nature of a company's efforts to uncover
and investigate violations, (2) the quality of a company's efforts in
cooperating and managing the aftermath of misconduct, and (3) a
company's efforts to prevent future wrongdoing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ CFTC Policy Statement Relating to the Commission's
Authority to Impose Civil Monetary Penalties and Futures Self-
Regulatory Organizations' Authority to Impose Sanctions, ``Penalty
Guidelines,'' Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ] 26,265 (Nov. 1994).
    \16\ CFTC Enforcement Advisory, ``Cooperation Factors in
Enforcement Division Sanction Recommendations,'' August 11, 2004.
    \17\ In addition to the three general areas, the CFTC staff
noted that it would consider additional factors, such as the level
or organization at which misconduct occurred, whether misconduct was
the result of pressure from superiors, how long the misconduct
lasted after discovery, whether the company responded with adequate
resources, and whether actions were taken to mitigate the
misconduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In adopting enforcement policies, the SEC and the CFTC declined
to establish a penalty schedule or formulas for how certain factors
would be weighed for given violations. Instead, they emphasized the
importance of considering a range of factors that may lead to different
penalty decisions

depending on the circumstances presented by each case.

Relation of Existing and New Civil Penalty Authority

    11. Existing section 316A of the FPA provides that ``[i]n
determining the amount of a proposed penalty, the Commission shall take
into consideration the seriousness of the violation and the efforts of
such person to remedy the violation in a timely manner.'' \18\ Section
314 of EPAct 2005 includes identical language in new section 22(c) of
the NGA. Thus, the seriousness of the violation is the first touchstone
for our determination of the level of penalty to be imposed. Second,
the actions by an entity that has engaged in misconduct are relevant to
deciding whether the penalty should be reduced or even eliminated.
These requirements are reflected in our existing regulations governing
imposition of civil penalties under section 31 of the FPA for
violations related to hydropower projects.\19\ The guidance of this
Policy Statement is consistent with the existing rule on factors we
consider in the context of hydropower project violations and penalties.
In addition, we have a generally applicable policy for considering
reductions or waivers of penalties for small entities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 16 U.S.C. 825o-1(b) (2000).
    \19\ 18 CFR 385.1505 (2005).
    \20\ 18 CFR 2.500 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Our enhanced civil penalty authority will operate in tandem
with our existing authority to require disgorgement of unjust profits
obtained through misconduct and/or to condition, suspend, or revoke
certificate authority or other authorizations, such as market-based
rate authority for sellers of electric energy. This is similar to the
ability of the SEC to require an accounting and disgorgement to
investors for losses and also to impose penalties for the misconduct,
or of the CFTC to order restitution or obtain disgorgement and also to
impose fines for violations.\21\ In doing so, we intend to take the
full range of possible remedies into account in determining whether a
penalty should be imposed in addition to other remedies and, if so, the
appropriate amount of the penalty.\22\ Entities faced with enforcement
thus will be subject to the full array of possible enforcement tools,
but we will exercise our discretion to apply remedies in a fair,
reasonable, and appropriate manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See sections 21-21C of the Securities Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. 78u-78u-3 (2000). The CFTC can revoke or suspend a
registration, suspend or prohibit certain trading, issue cease and
desist orders, order restitution, and seek equitable remedies
(injunction, rescission, or disgorgement), all in addition to
imposing a monetary fine. 7 U.S.C. 13a & 13b (2000); Comm. Fut. L.
Rep. (CCH) ] 26,265, p. 42,247.
    \22\ In considering all available remedies for a violation, we
are mindful that the new and enhanced civil penalties are applicable
only to violations on and after August 8, 2005. To the extent a
previous violation is continuing, however, the new and enhanced
penalties are applicable to that violation as of August 8, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. We noted that the practice of the SEC and CFTC is to decide on
remedies on a case-by-case basis, and not to create a schedule of
penalties. Likewise, we will not prescribe specific penalties or
develop formulas for different violations. It is important that we
retain the discretion and flexibility to address each case on its
merits, and to fashion remedies appropriate to the facts presented,
including any mitigating factors.
    14. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in Docket No. RM06-
3-000 today we propose rules to implement the anti-manipulation
provisions of EPAct 2005 while retaining Market Behavior Rule 2 issued
in 2003.\23\ We note there that we will not seek duplicative sanctions
for the same conduct in the event it violates both the new rules and
the Market Behavior Rules. This is because both rules, although
different in scope and application, address manipulation. In other
contexts, violations of more than one statute, order, rule, or
regulation may result in separate penalties. Moreover, under our
enhanced civil penalty authority, we will develop a consistent approach
to the amount of penalties for misconduct so that the penalties are
similar in analogous cases, and are evenhanded for similar conduct,
taking all relevant factors into account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility
Market-Based Rate Authorizations, ``Order Amending Market-Based Rate
Tariffs and Authorizations,'' 105 FERC ] 61,218 (2003), reh'g
denied, 107 FERC ] 61,175 (2004); Order No. 644, Amendment to
Blanket Sales Certificates, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,153 (2003),
reh'g denied, 107 FERC ] 61,174 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. We do, of course, reserve the right to impose remedies,
including civil penalties, and also to refer a violation for criminal
prosecution if the facts of the case so warrant. There is no doubt that
entities and individuals are subject both to prosecution under criminal
provisions of our statutes and to civil remedies.\24\ Moreover,
perjury, obstruction, and making false statements to members of the
Commission staff are criminal offenses.\25\ If the misconduct is
serious enough, we may refer the matter for criminal prosecution to
provide adequate punishment and deterrence. We will take all factors
into account in deciding what cases should be referred for criminal
prosecution, including the seriousness of the violation, the extent of
the harm done, the evidence of willful behavior, and the strength of
the evidence of wrongdoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See FPA sections 316 and 316A, 16 U.S.C. 825o and 825o-1;
NGA sections 21 and 22, 15 U.S.C. 717t; and NGPA section 504, 15
U.S.C. 3414. We note that in EPAct 2005 section 1284(d), Congress
repealed FPA section 316(c), which previously had exempted FPA
sections 211, 212, 213, and 214 from the criminal sanctions of FPA
section 316(a) and (b). Thus, in addition to extending civil penalty
authority to all matters under FPA part II, Congress made clear that
both civil penalties and criminal sanctions apply to violations of
any rule or order issued under FPA part II.
    \25\ See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1001 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. When we exercise our new civil penalty authority under the NGA,
and the expanded authority under part II of the FPA, we are required to
provide ``notice and opportunity for a public hearing.'' \26\ While
procedures for issuing civil penalties are in place under the FPA,\27\
EPAct 2005 is silent with respect to procedures under the NGA. When we
issue civil penalty notices under the NGA, we intend to provide
companies with hearing procedures before an administrative law judge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPAct 2005 section 314(b), inserting new NGA section 22(b);
FPA section 316A(b), 16 U.S.C. 825o-1(b) (2000).
    \27\ 16 U.S.C. 823b (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factors Guiding the Selection of Enforcement Remedies

    17. Vigorous and even-handed enforcement of our statutes, orders,
rules, and regulations protects energy markets and consumers. At the
same time it is in the best interest of all segments of the industry
that compliance, self-reporting, and cooperation in dealings with the
Commission are emphasized. We therefore describe below factors we will
take into account in determining the appropriate level of penalty to be
imposed for violations of our rules or regulations. We recognize that
no list can cover every possible significant factor, and we will
consider other pertinent factors as appropriate.
    18. In doing so, we first emphasize that we must make enforcement
decisions based on all relevant factors, and we therefore must retain
the flexibility to weigh all relevant information and apply the policy
in light of the facts of each case. This Policy Statement does not
confer any rights or guarantees with respect to enforcement actions. We
reserve the right to impose appropriate sanctions based on all the
facts presented, and we recognize that there may be circumstances where
the conduct is so egregious that the full use of the

Commission's penalty authorities is necessary regardless of the
presence of other factors.
    19. In addition, the enhancement of our civil penalty authority
does not mean that we will refrain from ordering the disgorgement of
unjust profits or economic benefits that are the result of wrongdoing.
To the contrary, companies will be expected to disgorge unjust profits
whenever they can be determined or reasonably estimated. The purpose of
disgorgement is to nullify the value of gains acquired through
misconduct. When evaluating an appropriate remedy, above disgorgement
of profit, the Commission will assess the factors described below to
determine whether and to what extent other remedies, including
suspension or revocation of certificate or market-based rate authority
and/or civil penalties, are warranted.
    20. As mandated by sections 316A of the FPA and new section 22 of
the NGA, the seriousness of the offense is the first consideration in
determining appropriate penalties. Factors that may be considered in
judging the seriousness of the offense include:
     What harm was caused by the violation? Was there loss of
life or injury or endangerment to persons? Was there damage to property
or the environment? Was the harm widespread across markets or
customers, or was it limited in scope and impact? Did it involve
significant sums of money? Were others indirectly affected by the
wrongdoing? What benefit did the wrongdoer gain from the violation?
     Was the violation the result of manipulation, deceit, or
artifice? Did the wrongdoer misrepresent material facts? Was the
conduct fraudulent? Were the actions reckless or deliberately
indifferent to the results?
     Was the action willful? Was the violation part of a
broader scheme? Did the wrongdoer act in concert with others?
     Is this a repeat offense or does the company have a
history of violations? Is this an isolated instance or a recurring
problem? Was the wrongdoing systematic and persistent? How long did the
wrongdoing last?
     Was the wrongdoing related to actions by senior
management, the result of pressure placed on employees by senior
management to achieve specific results, or done with the knowledge and
acquiescence of senior management? Did management engage in a cover-up?
     How did the wrongdoing come to light? Did senior
management resist or ignore efforts to inquire into actions or
otherwise impede an inquiry into the violation?
     What effect would potential penalties have on the
financial viability of the company that committed the wrongdoing?

Credit for Internal Compliance, Self-Reporting, and Cooperation

    21. The second point to be taken into account as required by
section 316A of the FPA and new section 22 of the NGA is what efforts
the company made to remedy the violation in a timely manner. This
aspect of company reaction to wrongdoing involves what consideration
will be given for steps taken by entities to prevent, monitor, and
immediately stop misconduct, to report violations to the Commission,
and to cooperate with the Commission's enforcement actions.

1. Internal Compliance

    22. Internal compliance is an important proactive tool. We
encourage companies engaged in jurisdictional activities to take steps
to create a strong atmosphere of compliance in their organizations. To
this end, the following are factors that will be taken into account in
determining credit given for a company's commitment to compliance:
     Does the company have an established, formal program for
internal compliance? Is it well documented and widely disseminated
within the company? Is the program supervised by an officer or other
high-ranking official? Does the compliance official report to or have
independent access to the chief executive officer and/or the board of
directors? Is the program operated and managed so as to be independent?
Are there sufficient resources dedicated to the compliance program?
     Is compliance fully supported by senior management? For
example, is senior management actively involved in compliance efforts
and do company policies regarding compensation, promotion, and
disciplinary action take into account the relevant employees'
compliance with Commission regulations and the reporting of any
violations?
     How frequently does the company review and modify the
compliance program? How frequently is training provided to all relevant
employees? Is the training sufficiently detailed and thorough to
instill an understanding of relevant rules and the importance of
compliance?
     In addition to training, does the company have an ongoing
process for auditing compliance with Commission regulations?
     How has the company responded to prior wrongdoing? Did it
take disciplinary action against employees involved in violations? When
misconduct occurs, is it a repeat of the same offense or misconduct of
a different nature? Does the company adopt and ensure enforcement of
new and more effective internal controls and procedures to prevent a
recurrence of misconduct?
    23. The answers to these questions will indicate what credit, if
any, can be given for the existence of a compliance program when we are
considering enforcement action and penalties. We reiterate that credit
extends to penalties, compliance plans, and the like but not to
disgorgement of unjust profits. As noted earlier, at a minimum a
company involved in wrongdoing must disgorge any unjust profits
resulting from the wrongdoing.

2. Self-Reporting

    24. We place great importance on self-reporting. Companies are in
the best position to detect and correct violations of our orders,
rules, and regulations, both inadvertent and intentional, and should be
proactive in doing so. When a company self-reports violations to the
Commission it facilitates remedies to affected parties. The following
are considerations in deciding what level of credit to give for self-
reporting violations to the Commission when determining the penalties
for violations so reported:
     How did the company uncover the misconduct? Was it through
a self-evaluation, internal audit, or internal compliance program? Did
the company act immediately when it learned of the misconduct?
     Did the company notify the Commission promptly? Did senior
management actively participate and encourage employees to provide
information to identify the misconduct?
     Did the company take immediate steps to stop the
misconduct? Did it implement or create an adequate response to the
misconduct?
     Did the company arrange for individuals with full
knowledge of the matter to meet with Commission enforcement staff?
     Did the company present its findings to the Commission and
provide all relevant evidence regarding the misconduct, including full
disclosure of the scope of the wrongdoing; the identity of all
employees involved, including senior executives; the steps taken by the
company upon learning of the misconduct; communications among involved
employees; documents evidencing the misconduct; and

measures taken to remedy the misconduct?
    25. As stated earlier, we cannot determine in advance how much
credit is given for self-reporting. It is possible, however, that
prompt and full self-reporting of violations, coupled with steps to
correct the adverse impact on customers or third parties from the
misconduct, may result in a significant reduction in the amount of
civil penalty or no civil penalty being assessed. Companies should
still expect to disgorge any unjust profits.
3. Cooperation
    26. Cooperation may come in any context--a company response to a
Commission inquiry, audit, or investigation, or in voluntary self-
reporting of misconduct. We expect cooperation, as entities subject to
our jurisdiction are required to provide us with information at our
request.\28\ Still, we will give some consideration to exemplary
cooperation, that is, cooperation which quickly ends wrongful conduct,
determines the facts, and corrects a problem. Cooperation must come
very early in the process, however, and must be in good faith,
consistent, and continuing. No credit will be given if a company does
no more than the minimum, or delays cooperation, or purports to
cooperate but actually engages in conduct that impedes the Commission's
activities or consumes Commission resources unnecessarily. The
following are indicative of cooperation for which credit may be given
when we determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed for wrongdoing.
Although these factors are similar to those described above with
respect to self-reporting, they remain relevant in the context of
cooperation because, under appropriate circumstances, the Commission
will consider these factors even for entities that did not self-report
violations, provided that cooperation was provided once the violation
was uncovered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ FPA section 301(b), 16 U.S.C. 825b(b); NGA section 8(b), 15
U.S.C. 717g(b); NGPA section 304(a), 15 U.S.C. 3314(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Did the company volunteer to provide internal
investigation or audit reports relating to the misconduct? Did the
company hire an independent outside entity to assist the company's
investigation?
     Did senior management make clear to all employees that
their cooperation has the full support and encouragement of management
and the directors of the company?
     Did the company facilitate Commission access to employees
with knowledge and information bearing on the issue, and actively
encourage such employees to provide the Commission with complete and
accurate information?
     Did the company identify culpable employees and assist the
Commission in understanding their conduct?
     Did the company make records readily available, with
assistance on searching and interpreting information in the records?
     Did the company fairly and accurately determine the
effects of the misconduct, including identifying the revenues and
profits resulting from the misconduct and the customers or market
participants adversely affected by the misconduct?
    27. It is possible for an entity to comply with the majority of the
stated factors in part, but without wholeheartedly devoting its
resources and efforts to cooperation. Likewise, it is conceivable for
an entity to cooperate in certain aspects yet hinder enforcement
investigation in others. Lack of cooperation is a serious matter and
will be weighed in deciding appropriate remedies. Uncooperative conduct
includes such things as failing to respond to data requests in a timely
manner; failing to produce documents and witnesses within a reasonable
period; misrepresenting the nature or extent of the misconduct;
claiming that records are unavailable when they are; limiting staff
access to employees; inappropriately directing or influencing employees
or their counsel not to cooperate fully or openly with the
investigation; engaging in obstructive conduct during investigative
testimony or interviews; providing specious explanations for instances
of misconduct that are uncovered; failing properly to search computer
hard drives for documents and electronic images; and failing to provide
documents in the way they are maintained in the normal course of
business. The manner in which a company approaches cooperation will be
an important factor in determining whether, and how much, credit may be
given for cooperation.

Conclusion

    28. The factors discussed in this Policy Statement provide guidance
to the industry on the approach we will take to future enforcement. It
is consistent with past Commission practice, and with the practices of
other federal agencies with similar powers. Entities subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction should expect firm but fair enforcement in
the future, including the use, as appropriate, of the substantial new
civil penalty authority provided by EP Act 2005.
    29. At the same time, entities can take steps to improve and ensure
compliance by their officers, employees, and agents with our statutes,
orders, rules, and regulations. We place a high value on internal
compliance, self-reporting, and cooperation. The credit we will give
for mitigating factors, including proactive steps taken by companies,
depends on many factors and cannot be reduced to a predictable
quantity. But where many of the positive factors of internal
compliance, self-reporting, and cooperation are present, we will take
those factors into account in determining the appropriate penalties for
violations.

    By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-21899 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54997-55001]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21896]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1435]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of
new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable,
portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood
hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (44 CFR Part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents
and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for
new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes,
the currently effective community number is shown in the table below
and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90)
days in which to request through the community that the Deputy
Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/
fmxmain.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR Part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Chief executive                       Online location
        State and county          Location and case      officer of        Community map    of  Letter of Map        Effective date of        Community
                                         No.              community          repository          Revision              modification              No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
    Maricopa...................  City of Scottsdale  The Honorable Jim   City Hall, 3939    http://            October 17, 2014............       045012
                                  (14-09-0808P).      Lane, Mayor, City   North Drinkwater   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      of Scottsdale,      Boulevard,         lomc.
                                                      3939 North          Scottsdale, AZ
                                                      Drinkwater          85251.
                                                      Boulevard,
                                                      Scottsdale, AZ
                                                      85251.
    Maricopa...................  Town of Queen       The Honorable Gail  Town Hall, 22350   http://            October 24, 2014............       040132
                                  Creek (14-09-       Barney, Mayor,      South Ellsworth    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  1090P).             Town of Queen       Road, Queen        lomc.
                                                      Creek, 22350        Creek, AZ 85142.
                                                      South Ellsworth
                                                      Road, Queen
                                                      Creek, AZ 85142.
    Maricopa...................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Maricopa County    http://            October 24, 2014............       040037
                                  areas of Maricopa   Denny Barney,       Flood Control      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-09-      Chairman,           District, 2801     lomc.
                                  1090P).             Maricopa County     West Durango
                                                      Board of            Street, Phoenix,
                                                      Supervisors, 301    AZ 85009.
                                                      West Jefferson,
                                                      10th Floor,
                                                      Phoenix, AZ 85003.
California:
    Orange.....................  City of Newport     The Honorable Rush  City Hall, 100     http://            October 30, 2014............       060227
                                  Beach (14-09-       N. Hill, II,        Civic Center       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  2874P).             Mayor, City of      Drive, Newport     lomc.
                                                      Newport Beach,      Beach, CA 92660.
                                                      100 Civic Center
                                                      Drive, Newport
                                                      Beach, CA 92660.

    San Diego..................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       San Diego County   http://            October 16, 2014............       060284
                                  areas of San        Dianne Jacob,       Department of      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  Diego County (14-   Chair, San Diego    Public Works,      lomc.
                                  09-0364P).          County Board of     Flood Control
                                                      Supervisors, 1600   Division, 5510
                                                      Pacific Highway,    Overland Avenue,
                                                      San Diego, CA       Suite 410, San
                                                      92101.              Diego, CA 92123.
Colorado:
    Boulder....................  City of Longmont    The Honorable       Service Center,    http://            October 22, 2014............       080027
                                  (14-08-0987P).      Dennis L. Coombs,   1100 South         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Sherman Street,    lomc.
                                                      Longmont, 350       Longmont, CO
                                                      Kimbark Street,     80501.
                                                      Longmont, CO
                                                      80501.
    Jefferson..................  City of Arvada (14- The Honorable Marc  City Hall, 8101    http://            October 17, 2014............       085072
                                  08-0099P).          Williams, Mayor,    Ralston Road,      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      City of Arvada,     Arvada, CO 80001.  lomc.
                                                      P.O. Box 8101,
                                                      Arvada, CO 80001.
Florida:
    Broward....................  City of Fort        The Honorable John  City Hall, 100     http://            November 6, 2014............       125105
                                  Lauderdale (14-04-  P. ``Jack''         North Andrews      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  1663P).             Seiler, Mayor,      Avenue, Fort       lomc.
                                                      City of Fort        Lauderdale, FL
                                                      Lauderdale, 100     33301.
                                                      North Andrews
                                                      Avenue, Fort
                                                      Lauderdale, FL
                                                      33301.
    Charlotte..................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Ken   Charlotte County   http://            October 16, 2014............       120061
                                  areas of            Doherty,            Community          www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  Charlotte County,   Chairman,           Development        lomc.
                                  (14-04-2502P).      Charlotte County    Department,
                                                      Board of            18500 Murdock
                                                      Commissioners,      Circle, Port
                                                      18500 Murdock       Charlotte, FL
                                                      Circle, Port        33948.
                                                      Charlotte, FL
                                                      33948.
    Duval......................  City of             The Honorable       City Hall, 117     http://            October 27, 2014............       120077
                                  Jacksonville (14-   Alvin Brown,        West Duval         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  04-2078P).          Mayor, City of      Street             lomc.
                                                      Jacksonville, 117   Jacksonville, FL
                                                      West Duval          32202.
                                                      Street,
                                                      Jacksonville, FL
                                                      32202.
    Manatee and Sarasota.......  Town of Longboat    The Honorable Jim   Planning, Zoning,  http://            October 30, 2014............       125126
                                  Key (14-04-3983P).  Brown, Mayor,       and Building       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Town of Longboat    Department, 501    lomc.
                                                      Key, 501 Bay        Bay Isles Road,
                                                      Isles Road,         Longboat Key, FL
                                                      Longboat Key, FL    34228.
                                                      34228.
    Monroe.....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Monroe County      http://            October 14, 2014............       125129
                                  areas of Monroe     Sylvia Murphy,      Planning and       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Mayor, Monroe       Environmental      lomc.
                                  4077P).             County, 1100        Resources
                                                      Simonton Street,    Department, 2798
                                                      Key West, FL        Overseas
                                                      33040.              Highway,
                                                                          Marathon, FL
                                                                          33050.
    Orange.....................  City of Orlando     The Honorable       Permitting         http://            September 5, 2014...........       120186
                                  (14-04-3140P).      Buddy Dyer,         Services           www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Department, 400    lomc.
                                                      Orlando, P.O. Box   South Orange
                                                      4990, Orlando, FL   Avenue, Orlando,
                                                      32802.              FL 32801.
    Orange.....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Orange County      http://            October 17, 2014............       120179
                                  areas of Orange     Teresa Jacobs,      Stormwater         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Mayor, Orange       Management         lomc.
                                  0780P).             County, 201 South   Department, 4200
                                                      Rosalind Avenue,    South John Young
                                                      5th Floor,          Parkway,
                                                      Orlando, FL 32801.  Orlando, FL
                                                                          32839.
    Osceola....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Fred  Osceola County     http://            October 17, 2014............       120189
                                  areas of Osceola    Hawkins, Jr.,       Stormwater         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Chairman, Osceola   Section, 1         lomc.
                                  0490P).             County Board of     Courthouse
                                                      Commissioners, 1    Square, Suite
                                                      Courthouse          1400, Kissimmee,
                                                      Square, Suite       FL 34741.
                                                      4700, Kissimmee,
                                                      FL 34741.
    Polk.......................  Unincorporated      The Honorable R.    Polk County        http://            November 6, 2014............       120261
                                  areas of Polk       Todd Dantzler,      Engineering        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Chairman, Polk      Division, 330      lomc.
                                  2689P).             County Board of     West Church
                                                      Commissioners,      Street, Bartow,
                                                      P.O. Box 9005,      FL 33831.
                                                      Bartow, FL 33831.
    Polk.......................  Unincorporated      The Honorable R.    Polk County        http://            October 16, 2014............       120261
                                  areas of Polk       Todd Dantzler,      Engineering        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Chairman, Polk      Division, 330      lomc.
                                  2776P).             County Board of     West Church
                                                      Commissioners,      Street, Bartow,
                                                      P.O. Box 9005,      FL 33831.
                                                      Bartow, FL 33831.

    Sarasota...................  City of Sarasota    The Honorable       City Hall, 1565    http://            October 22, 2014............       125150
                                  (14-04-3830P).      Willie Charles      1st Street,        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Shaw, Mayor, City   Sarasota, FL       lomc.
                                                      of Sarasota, 1565   34236.
                                                      1st Street,
                                                      Sarasota, FL
                                                      34236.
    Sarasota...................  City of Sarasota    The Honorable       City Hall, 1565    http://            November 13, 2014...........       125150
                                  (14-04-5443P).      Willie Charles      1st Street,        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Shaw, Mayor, City   Sarasota, FL       lomc.
                                                      of Sarasota, 1565   34236.
                                                      1st Street,
                                                      Sarasota, FL
                                                      34236.
    Sarasota...................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Sarasota County    http://            October 15, 2014............       125144
                                  areas of Sarasota   Charles D. Hines,   Stormwater         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Chairman,           Management         lomc.
                                  3759P).             Sarasota County     Department, 1001
                                                      Commission, 1660    Sarasota Center
                                                      Ringling            Boulevard,
                                                      Boulevard,          Sarasota, FL
                                                      Sarasota, FL        34240.
                                                      34236.
Georgia:
    Columbia...................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Ron   Columbia County    http://            November 10, 2014...........       130059
                                  areas of Columbia   C. Cross,           Engineering        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (13-04-      Chairman,           Division, 630      lomc.
                                  7901P).             Columbia County     Ronald Reagan
                                                      Board of            Drive, Building
                                                      Commissioners,      A, Evans, GA
                                                      630 Ronald Reagan   30809.
                                                      Drive, Building
                                                      B, Evans, GA
                                                      30809.
    Columbia...................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Ron   Columbia County    http://            October 16, 2014............       130059
                                  areas of Columbia   C. Cross,           Engineering        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (13-04-      Chairman,           Division, 630      lomc.
                                  8279P).             Columbia County     Ronald Reagan
                                                      Board of            Drive, Building
                                                      Commissioners,      A, Evans, GA
                                                      630 Ronald Reagan   30809.
                                                      Drive, Building
                                                      B, Evans, GA
                                                      30809.
    Columbia...................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Ron   Columbia County    http://            November 6, 2014............       130059
                                  areas of Columbia   C. Cross,           Engineering        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (13-04-      Chairman,           Division, 630      lomc.
                                  8301P).             Columbia County     Ronald Regan
                                                      Board of            Drive, Building
                                                      Commissioners,      A, Evans, GA
                                                      630 Ronald Regan    30809.
                                                      Drive, Building
                                                      B, Evans, GA
                                                      30809.
    Gwinnett...................  City of Lilburn     The Honorable       City Hall, 76      http://            October 10, 2014............       130100
                                  (13-04-4606P).      Johnny D. Crist,    Main Street,       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Lilburn, GA        lomc.
                                                      Lilburn, 76 Main    30047.
                                                      Street, Lilburn,
                                                      GA 30047.
    Richmond...................  Augusta-Richmond    The Honorable Deke  Augusta-Richmond   http://            October 17, 2014............       130158
                                  County (13-04-      S. Copenhaver,      County Planning    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  2899P).             Mayor, Augusta-     and Zoning         lomc.
                                                      Richmond County,    Department, 525
                                                      75 Conifer          Telfair Street,
                                                      Circle, Augusta,    Augusta, GA
                                                      GA 30909.           30901.
Nevada:
    Clark......................  City of Henderson   The Honorable Andy  Public Works       http://            October 2, 2014.............       320005
                                  (14-09-0094P).      Hafen, Mayor,       Department, 240    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      City of             Water Street,      lomc.
                                                      Henderson, P.O.     Henderson, NV
                                                      Box 95050,          89015.
                                                      Henderson, NV
                                                      89009.
    Washoe.....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Washoe County      http://            October 20, 2014............       320019
                                  areas of Washoe     David Humke,        Public Works       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-09-      Chairman, Washoe    Department, 1001   lomc.
                                  1338P).             County Board of     East 9th Street,
                                                      Commissioners,      Reno, NV 89512.
                                                      P.O. Box 11130,
                                                      Reno, NV 89512.
North Carolina:
    Franklin...................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Franklin County    http://            October 17, 2014............       370377
                                  areas of Franklin   Angela L. Harris,   Planning and       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Franklin County     Inspections        lomc.
                                  1007P).             Manager, 113        Office, 215 East
                                                      Market Street,      Nash Street,
                                                      Louisburg, NC       Louisburg, NC
                                                      27549.              27549.
    Macon......................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Macon County       http://            October 16, 2014............       370150
                                  areas of Macon      Kevin Corbin,       Planning           www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (14-04-      Chairman, Macon     Department, 5      lomc.
                                  3043P).             County Board of     West Main
                                                      Commissioners, 5    Street,
                                                      West Main Street,   Franklin, NC
                                                      Franklin, NC        28734.
                                                      28734.
North Dakota: Bowman...........  City of Bowman (14- The Honorable Lyn   Zoning             http://            October 6, 2014.............       380012
                                  08-0180P).          James, President,   Administrator's    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      City of Bowman      Office, 104 1st    lomc.
                                                      Commission, P.O.    Street NW,
                                                      Box 12, Bowman,     Bowman, ND 58623.
                                                      ND 58623.
South Carolina:

    Aiken......................  City of North       The Honorable Lark  City Hall, 100     http://            October 17, 2014............       450007
                                  Augusta (13-04-     W. Jones, Mayor,    Georgia Avenue,    www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  2899P).             City of North       North Augusta,     lomc.
                                                      Augusta, 100        SC 29841.
                                                      Georgia Avenue,
                                                      North Augusta, SC
                                                      29841.
    Aiken......................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Aiken County       http://            October 17, 2014............       450002
                                  areas of Aiken      Ronnie Young,       Planning and       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (13-04-      Chairman, Aiken     Zoning             lomc.
                                  2899P).             County Council,     Department, 1680
                                                      220 Deerwood        Richmond Avenue
                                                      Drive, North        West, North
                                                      Augusta, SC 29841.  Augusta, SC
                                                                          29801.
    Charleston.................  Town of Mount       The Honorable       Town Hall, 100     http://            November 4, 2014............       455417
                                  Pleasant (14-04-    Linda Page,         Ann Edwards        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  4488P).             Mayor, Town of      Lane, Mount        lomc.
                                                      Mount Pleasant,     Pleasant, SC
                                                      100 Ann Edwards     29464.
                                                      Lane, Mount
                                                      Pleasant, SC
                                                      29464.
    Charleston.................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Charleston County  http://            November 4, 2014............       455413
                                  areas of            Teddie E. Pryor,    Building           www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  Charleston County   Sr., Chairman,      Services           lomc.
                                  (14-04-4488P).      Charleston County   Department, 2700
                                                      Council, 2700       Crestline Drive,
                                                      Crestline Drive,    North
                                                      North Charleston,   Charleston, SC
                                                      SC 29405.           29405.
    Richland...................  City of Columbia    The Honorable       Department of      http://            October 27, 2014............       450172
                                  (13-04-7561P).      Steve Benjamin,     Engineering,       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      P.O. Box 147,      lomc.
                                                      Columbia, P.O.      Columbia, SC
                                                      Box 147,            29217.
                                                      Columbia, SC
                                                      29217.
    Richland...................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Richland County    http://            October 27, 2014............       450170
                                  areas of Richland   Norman Jackson,     Courthouse, 1701   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (13-04-      Chairman,           Main Street,       lomc.
                                  7561P).             Richland County     Columbia, SC
                                                      Council, P.O. Box   29202.
                                                      90617, Columbia,
                                                      SC 29209.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: August 26, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-21896 Filed 9-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15594]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06630]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-53-000]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of
Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On March 16, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL15-53-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation to determine the
justness and reasonableness of the Energy Imbalance Market provisions
in the California Independent System Operator Corporation's existing
tariff related to the imbalance energy price spikes in PacifiCorp's
balancing authority areas. California Independent System Operator
Corporation, 150 FERC ] 61,191 (2015).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-53-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be 90 days from the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06630 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 15443-15444]
[DOCID:fr29mr10-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0156]

Advancing the Development of Diagnostic Tests and Biomarkers for
Tuberculosis; Public Workshop; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in partnership with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is announcing a
public workshop entitled ``Advancing the Development of Diagnostic
Tests and Biomarkers for Tuberculosis (TB).'' The purpose of the
workshop is to provide an environment for FDA, CDC, and NIAID to engage
other interested parties in identifying intellectual and procedural
gaps in the current development of TB diagnostic tests, and in
exploring models and strategies that would expedite the development of
new diagnostic tests and biomarkers for TB.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on June 7 and 8,
2010, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the National Labor
College,

10000 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903.
    Contact Person: Elizabeth Callaghan, Office of Critical Path
Programs (HF-18), Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Nancy Masiello, Office of Critical
Path Programs (HF-18), Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: Persons interested in attending the workshop must
register by close of business, June 3, 2010. If you wish to attend this
public workshop, you must register by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Those without e-mail access may register by contacting one of the
persons listed in the Contact Person section of this document. When
registering, you must provide your name, title, company, or
organization (if applicable), address, phone number, and e-mail address
(if applicable). There is no fee to register for the public workshop
and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Early
registration is recommended because seating is limited. Registration on
the day of the public workshop will be permitted on a space-available
basis beginning at 7:30 a.m.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact one of the persons listed in the Contact Person section of this
document at least 14 days prior to the workshop.
    Comments: FDA, CDC, and NIAID are holding this public workshop to
obtain information about developing new diagnostic tests and biomarkers
for TB. The deadline for submitting comments regarding this public
workshop is August 8, 2010.
    Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, interested persons
may submit written or electronic comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://
www.regulations.gov. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two
paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit
one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Between the mid-1980s and early 1990s, reports of TB in the United
States increased, after years of decline. This increase was associated
with a weakened network of TB services; the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) epidemic; increased immigration of persons from endemic
areas for TB; transmission of TB in surroundings with higher risk of
exposure (e.g., hospitals, prisons); and the emergence of drug-
resistant TB. However, reported TB cases substantially decreased in the
mid- to late 1990s with renewed efforts on TB control and prevention,
and a major focus on resources.
    In 2000, The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine
(IOM) issued a report\1\ concluding that TB can be eliminated as a
public health threat in the United States with appropriate funding for
additional prevention and control programs, and development of new
tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Institute of Medicine, Ending Neglect: The Elimination of
Tuberculosis in the United States, Committee on the Elimination of
Tuberculosis in the United States, Division of Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2003, the Federal TB Task Force (FTBTF) issued a plan\2\ to
implement the IOM recommendations. A reconvened FTBTF issued a plan in
2009\3\ specifically for combating multidrug-resistant TB (MDR TB) and
extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR TB). Both plans addressed domestic
and global strategies, including partnerships with global agencies, as
well as detailed action steps and specific agency roles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Federal Tuberculosis Task Force, Federal Tuberculosis
Task Force Plan in Response to the Institute of Medicine Report,
Ending Neglect: The Elimination of Tuberculosis in the United
States, Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
CDC, 2003.
    \3\ ``Plan to Combat Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis:
Recommendations of the Federal Tuberculosis Task Force,'' Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, Recommendations and Reports, 58 (RR-
3):1-43, February 13, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Purpose of the Public Workshop

    The workshop is intended to provide an environment for FDA, CDC,
and NAID to engage other interested parties in identifying intellectual
and procedural gaps in the current development of TB diagnostic tests,
and in exploring models and strategies that would expedite the
development of new diagnostic tests and biomarkers for TB. Invited
experts will address current research and its barriers; both regulatory
and scientific perspectives on the development of new diagnostic tests
and biomarkers for TB; resources for developing new TB diagnostic
tests; and components of and requirements for a TB specimen repository.
At designated times throughout the workshop, there will be short
discussions followed by question and answer sessions. Background
information on the public workshop, registration information, the
agenda, information about lodging, and other relevant information will
be posted, as it becomes available, on the Internet at http://
www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/
UpcomingEventsonCPI/ucm203262.htm.

III. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it
will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35), Office
of Management Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: March 23, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-6864 Filed 3-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58607-58608]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation Safety Approval
Performance Criteria

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notification of criteria used to evaluate the National
Aerospace Training and Research (NASTAR) Center safety approval
application.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA issued NASTAR a safety approval, subject to the
provisions of Title 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, ch. 509, and the orders,
rules and regulations issued under it. Pursuant to Title 14 Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 414.35, this Notice publishes the criteria
that were used to evaluate the safety approval application.

Background

    NASTAR applied for, and received, a safety approval for the ability
of its Falcon 12/4 Altitude Chamber to replicate pressures experienced
at altitude levels. The performance criteria for this safety approval
are applicant developed per 14 CFR 414.19(a)(4). NASTAR's Falcon 12/4
Altitude Chamber is capable of replicating any pressure experienced at
altitudes from zero (0) feet up to 100,000 feet. This includes rapid
decompression up to equalization altitudes of 30,800 feet.

Criteria Used To Evaluate Safety Approval Application

    The Falcon 12/4 Altitude Chamber was evaluated by the FAA as a
component of a flight crew qualification and training process. The
evaluation included the FAA's assessment of the Falcon 12/4 Altitude
Chamber's ability to accurately replicate the specified pressure
levels.
    NASTAR submitted the following data to show that the Falcon 12/4

Altitude Chamber complies with the criteria:

--Acceptance Test Plan,
--Pressure profile demonstrations, and
--Altimeter and pressure gauge test results.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the performance
criteria, you may contact Randal Maday, Licensing and Evaluation
Division (AST-200), FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation
(AST), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2012.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2012-23360 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 6637-6639]
[DOCID:fr12fe07-130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55211; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-79]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to an Amendment
to the Generic Listing Standards for Trust Shares

 January 31, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on November 29, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which items have been substantially prepared by
the Exchange. On January 29, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons, and is granting accelerated approval to the proposed rule
change as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange supplemented the rationale
for its request for accelerated approval and made technical changes
to the proposed rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 803--Criteria for
Listing--Tier 1, regarding generic listing standards for Trust Shares.
The text of the proposed Phlx Rule is set forth below, with new text
italicized and deleted text [bracketed].
Rule 803 Criteria for Listing--Tier I
* * * * *
    (a)-(h) No Change.
    (i) Trust Shares
    (1)-(10) No Change.
    (11) The Exchange may approve a series of Trust Shares for trading,
whether by listing or pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, pursuant
to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provided
each of the following criteria is satisfied:
    (a) Eligibility Criteria for Index Components. Upon the initial
listing of a series of Trust Shares on the Exchange, the component
stocks of an index or portfolio underlying such series of Trust Shares
shall meet the following criteria as of the date of the initial deposit
of cash and securities into the trust:
    (i)-(ii) No Change.
    (iii) The most heavily weighted component stock cannot exceed
[25]30% of the weight of the index or portfolio, and the five most
heavily weighted component stocks cannot exceed 65% of the weight of
the index or portfolio;
    (iv)-(v) No Change.
    (b)-(h) No Change.
    (j)-(m) No Change.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, substantially set
forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of
such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to conform Phlx's
generic listing standards for Trust Shares, specifically Rule
803(i)(11)(a)(iii), to the standards of other exchanges. Phlx Rule 803
provides generic listing standards for Trust Shares to permit listing
and trading of these securities pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the
Act.\4\ Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new
derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization shall
not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of
Rule 19b-4,\5\ if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section
19(b) of the Act,\6\ the self-regulatory organization's trading rules,
procedures and listing standards for the product class that would
include the new derivative securities product, and the self-regulatory
organization has a surveillance program for the product class.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(c)(1).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8,
1998), 63 FR 70952 (December 22, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These generic listing standards are intended to ensure that stocks
with substantial market capitalization and trading volume account for a
substantial portion of the weight of an index or portfolio. Phlx Rule
803 provides that, upon the initial listing of a series of Trust Shares
under Rule 19b-4(e), component stocks that in the aggregate account for
at least 90 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio must have a
minimum market value of at least $75 million. In addition, the
component stocks in the index must have a minimum monthly trading
volume during each of the last six months of at least 250,000 shares
for stocks representing at least 90 percent of the weight of the index
or portfolio. Currently, Rule 803(i)(11)(a)(iii) provides that the most
heavily weighted component stock in an underlying index cannot exceed
25 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio, and the five most
heavily weighted component stocks cannot exceed 65 percent of the
weight of the index or portfolio. The

Exchange proposes to increase from 25 percent to 30 percent the
permissible weight of the most heavily weighted component stock in an
underlying index. The Exchange is not amending the existing requirement
that the five most heavily weighted stocks cannot exceed 65 percent of
the weight of the index or portfolio. According to the Exchange, this
change will provide additional flexibility to unit investment trusts to
be listed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) in structuring their products and
will help reduce possible concerns associated with a single stock
exceeding the 25 percent threshold immediately prior to initial listing
and trading due to a spike in the price of the most heavily weighted
index stock. The Exchange notes that, notwithstanding this change, unit
investment trusts (including Trust Shares) are subject to Internal
Revenue Code Subchapter M requirements applicable to regulated
investment companies. In order to maintain regulated investment company
status, these entities would be required to rebalance their portfolios
quarterly to avoid any one stock exceeding a 25 percent weighting in
the trust's portfolio.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange states that written comments were neither solicited
nor received.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Phlx-2006-79 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-79. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2006-79 and should be submitted on or before March
5, 2007.

IV. Commission Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section
6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\11\ which requires, among other things,
that the Exchange's rules be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments and to perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes
that the proposed rule change is reasonably designed to provide
additional flexibility in the listing of Trust Shares under the
Exchange's generic listing standards. Further, the Commission believes
that the proposed rule change will serve to protect investors and the
public interest by maintaining the size and liquidity requirements
applicable to the securities underlying the relevant index or
portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the
notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission has
previously approved similar proposals by the American Stock Exchange
LLC (``Amex''), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'')
and New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'').\12\ Therefore, the proposed
rule change does not raise any new issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44532 (July 10,
2001), 66 FR 37078 (July 16, 2001) (SR-Amex-2001-25) (approving an
increase for indexes underlying Portfolio Depositary Receipts and
Index Fund Shares listed on the Amex); 44908 (October 4, 2001), 66
FR 52161 (October 12, 2001) (SR-CBOE-2001-38) (approving an increase
for indexes underlying Index Portfolio Receipts and Index Portfolio
Shares listed on the CBOE); 53934 (June 1, 2006), 71 FR 33326 (June
8, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-39) (approving an increase for indexes
underlying Investment Company Units).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2006-79), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2248 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34208-34209]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0445; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-27]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Leesburg, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D and Class E airspace at Leesburg,
FL, changing the airport's name to Leesburg International Airport. The
FAAs Aeronautical Products office requested the change to reflect the
airport's current name.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 26, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class D and Class E airspace at Leesburg, FL. Leesburg
Regional Airport has been renamed Leesburg International Airport to be
in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database. Accordingly, since this
is an administrative change, and does not affect the boundaries,
altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, notice and public
procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    The Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of
the earth designations are published in Paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005,
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective
September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them, operationally current,
is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A. Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace for the Leesburg, FL, Class D and E
airspace area.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Final Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 9, 2011, effective September 15, 2011, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Leesburg, FL [Amended]

Leesburg International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]49'23'' N., long. 81[deg]48'31'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not
including 1,600 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Leesburg
International Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific days and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D surface area.

* * * * *

ASO FL E4 Leesburg, FL [Amended]

Leesburg International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]49'23'' N., long. 81[deg]48'31'' W.)
Leesburg NDB
    (Lat. 28[deg]49'06'' N., long. 81[deg]48'26'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles
each side of the Leesburg NDB 111[deg] bearing, extending from the
4.1-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the NDB. This class E4
airspace area is effective during the specific days and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and
times will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Leesburg, FL [Amended]

Leesburg International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]49'23'' N., long. 81[deg]48'31Prime; W.)
Leesburg NDB
    (Lat. 28[deg]49'06'' N., long. 81[deg]48'26'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Leesburg International Airport, and
within 4 miles southwest and 8 miles northeast of the 111[deg]
bearing from the Leesburg NDB extending from the 6.6-mile radius to
16 miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 29, 2012.
Michael D. Wagner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern service center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012-13841 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P