[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9709-9716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM06-5-000; Order No. 673]


Amendments to Codes of Conduct for Unbundled Sales Service and 
for Persons Holding Blanket Marketing Certificates

Issued February 16, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) is amending its regulations regarding the blanket 
certificates for unbundled natural gas sales services held by 
interstate natural gas pipelines and the blanket marketing certificates 
held by persons making sales for resale of natural gas at negotiated 
rates in interstate commerce. Specifically, the Commission is 
rescinding sections of its regulations pertaining to codes of conduct 
with respect to certain sales of natural gas.

DATES: This final rule will become effective March 29, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank Karabetsos, Office of General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8133, [email protected].
Mark Higgins, Office of Market Oversight and Investigations, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-8273, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, 
and Suedeen G. Kelly

    1. The Commission has decided to rescind Sec. Sec.  284.288(a), (d) 
and (e) and 284.403(a), (d) and (e) of its codes of conduct 
regulations,\1\ as promulgated pursuant to Order No. 644.\2\ The 
central purpose of Order No. 644 was to prohibit market manipulation by 
pipelines that provide unbundled natural gas sales service and by 
sellers of natural gas for resale at negotiated rates. This prohibition 
is set out in Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's 
regulations. Sections 284.288(d)-(e) and 284.403(d)-(e) of the 
Commission's regulations are largely procedural in nature, dealing with 
remedies for violations of the codes of conduct requirements and time 
limits on complaints and Commission enforcement of the codes of conduct 
requirements. Subsequent to the issuance of Order No. 644, Congress 
provided the Commission with specific anti-manipulation authority in 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).\3\ To implement this new 
authority, the Commission recently issued Order No. 670, adopting a 
final rule making it unlawful for any entity, including pipelines that 
provide unbundled natural gas sales service and all sellers of natural 
gas for resale, to engage in fraudulent or deceptive conduct in 
connection with the purchase or sale of electric energy, natural gas, 
or transmission or transportation services subject to the jurisdiction 
of the Commission.\4\ In order to avoid regulatory uncertainty and 
confusion, to assure that all market participants are held to the same 
standard, and to provide clarity to entities subject to our rules and 
regulations, we rescind Sec. Sec.  284.288(a), (d) and (e) and 
284.403(a), (d) and (e) of the Commission's regulations effective 30 
days after publication hereof in the Federal Register.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 284.288(a), (d) and (e) and 284.403(a), (d) and (e) 
(2005).
    \2\ Amendments to Blanket Sales Certificates, 105 FERC ] 61,217 
(2003), reh'g denied 107 FERC ] 61,174; 68 FR 66323 (Nov. 26, 2003); 
18 CFR 284.288 and 284.403 (2003) (Order No. 644). Order No. 644 is 
currently on appeal. See Cinergy Marketing & Trading, L.P. v. FERC, 
No. 04-1168 et al. (D.C. Cir. filed April 28, 2004).
    \3\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 
(2005). Congress prohibited the use or employment of ``any 
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance'' in connection with 
the purchase or sale of natural gas or transportation services 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. Congress directed the 
Commission to give these terms the same meaning as under the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) (2000).
    \4\ Prohibition of Energy Market Manipulation, Order No. 670, 71 
FR 4244 (Jan. 26, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,202, 114 FERC ] 
61,047 (Jan. 19, 2006) (Order No. 670).
    \5\ The Commission will redesignate existing sections 
284.288(b)-(c) and 284.403(b)-(c) of the Commission's regulations as 
new sections 284.288(a)-(b) and 284.403(a)-(b), respectively. Unless 
otherwise specified, this NOPR will refer to these sections under 
their existing designation before the effectiveness of this Final 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Although Order No. 670 makes it unnecessary to retain Sec. Sec.  
284.288(a), (d) and (e) and 284.403(a), (d) and (e) of the Commission's 
regulations, there is benefit to retaining Sec. Sec.  284.288(b)-(c) 
and 284.403(b)-(c) of the Commission's regulations. Sections 284.288(b) 
and 284.403(b) of the Commission's regulations deal with requirements 
for price index reporting that are not entirely provided for by the new 
anti-manipulation regulations under Order

[[Page 9710]]

No. 670. Sections 284.288(c) and 284.403(c) of the codes of conduct 
regulations require sellers to maintain certain records for a period of 
three years to reconstruct prices charged for natural gas. This 
requirement is also not provided for by Order No. 670.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In a notice of proposed rulemaking issued contemporaneously 
with this Final Rule, Docket No. RM06-14-000, the Commission is 
proposing to extend the record retention requirements from three to 
five years to be consistent with the statute of limitations that 
would apply to actions seeking civil penalties for alleged 
violations of the new anti-manipulation rule implemented in Order 
No. 670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    3. On November 17, 2003, acting pursuant to section 7 of the NGA, 
we issued a final rule, Order No. 644, amending blanket certificates 
for unbundled natural gas sales services held by interstate natural gas 
pipelines and blanket marketing certificates held by persons making 
sales for resale of natural gas at negotiated rates in interstate 
commerce. This rule requires that pipelines that provide unbundled 
natural gas sales service and all sellers of natural gas for resale 
adhere to a code of conduct with respect to certain natural gas sales. 
The Commission determined that in order to protect and maintain the 
competitive natural gas market and to continue its light-handed 
regulation of the gas sales within its jurisdiction, it was necessary 
to place additional conditions on blanket certificates for unbundled 
pipeline sales and sales for resale at negotiated rates. In formulating 
such conditions, the Commission was fulfilling its obligation to 
appropriately monitor markets and to ensure that natural gas prices 
remain within the zone of reasonableness required by the NGA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Order No. 644, 105 FERC ] 61,217 at P 91 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Under Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's 
regulations, a pipeline providing unbundled natural gas sales service 
under Sec.  284.284, or any person making natural gas sales for resale 
in interstate commerce pursuant to Sec.  284.402, ``is prohibited from 
engaging in actions or transactions that are without a legitimate 
business purpose and that are intended to or foreseeably could 
manipulate market prices, market conditions, or market rules for 
natural gas.'' Prohibited actions or transactions include wash trades 
and collusion for the purpose of market manipulation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 18 CFR 284.288(a)(1)-(2) and 284.403(a)(1)-(2) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Sections 284.288(b) and 284.403(b) deal with reporting of 
transaction information to price index publishers. They require that if 
a seller reports transaction data, the data be accurate and factual, 
and not knowingly false or misleading, and be reported in accordance 
with the Commission's Policy Statement on price indices.\9\ Sections 
284.288(b) and 284.403(b) also require that sellers notify the 
Commission of whether they report transaction data to price index 
publishers in accordance with the Price Index Policy Statement, and to 
update any changes in their reporting status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Electric Markets, 
``Policy Statement on Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices,'' 104 
FERC ] 61,121 (2003) (Price Index Policy Statement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Sections 284.288(c) and 284.403(c) require that sellers retain 
for a minimum three-year period all data and information upon which 
they billed the prices charged for natural gas sales made under 
Sec. Sec.  284.284 or 284.402, or in transactions the prices of which 
were reported to price index publishers.
    7. Sections 284.288(d)-(e) and 284.403(d)-(e) of the Commission's 
regulations are largely procedural in nature. Specifically, Sec. Sec.  
284.288(d) and 284.403(d) deal with remedies for violations of the 
codes of conduct requirements set forth in preceding Sec. Sec.  (a) 
through (c) of Sec. Sec.  284.288 and 284.403. Sections 284.288(e) and 
284.403(e) deal with time limits on complaints and Commission 
enforcement of the codes of conduct requirements.
    8. At the same time that Order No. 644 was adopted for pipelines 
that provide unbundled natural gas sales service and holders of blanket 
certificate authority that make sales for resale of natural gas, the 
Commission also issued an order to require wholesale sellers of 
electricity at market-based rates to adhere to certain behavioral rules 
when making sales of electricity.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Following enactment of EPAct 2005, the Commission issued a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 20, 2005, in which we proposed 
rules to implement the new statutory anti-manipulation provisions.\11\ 
In the Anti-Manipulation NOPR, we noted the overlap between Sec. Sec.  
284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations and the 
proposed EPAct 2005 regulations.\12\ We said that we would retain 
Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations 
for the time being, but also indicated that we would seek comment on 
whether we should revise or rescind Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 
284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations. In the meantime, we assured 
market participants that we will not seek duplicative sanctions for the 
same conduct in the event that conduct violates both Sec. Sec.  
284.288(a) or 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations and the 
proposed new anti-manipulation rule.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Prohibition of Energy Market Manipulation, 113 FERC ] 
61,067 (2005) (Anti-Manipulation NOPR).
    \12\ Id. at P 15 and n.23.
    \13\ Id. See also Enforcement of Statutes, Orders, Rules, and 
Regulations, ``Policy Statement on Enforcement,'' 113 FERC ] 61,068 
at P 14 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking dated November 21, 2005,\14\ 
the Commission, acting pursuant to section 7 of the NGA, proposed to 
rescind Sec. Sec.  284.288 or 284.403 of the Commission's regulations 
once we issued final regulations implementing the anti-manipulation 
provisions of EPAct 2005 and have had the opportunity to incorporate 
certain aspects of Sec. Sec.  284.288 or 284.403 of the Commission's 
regulations into other rules of general applicability. The Commission 
also requested comment on whether ``any aspects'' of Sec. Sec.  284.288 
and 284.403 of the Commission's regulations should be retained, or 
could ``all substantive provisions'' of Sec. Sec.  284.288 and 284.403 
of the Commission's regulations be reflected in the final regulations 
implementing the anti-manipulation provisions of EPAct 2005.\15\ We 
noted that rescission of Sec. Sec.  284.288 and 284.403 of the 
Commission's regulations will simplify the Commission's rules and 
regulations, avoid confusion, and provide greater clarity and 
regulatory certainty to the industry. We emphasized our belief that 
rescinding Sec. Sec.  284.288 and 284.403 of the Commission's 
regulations is consistent with Congressional intent in EPAct 2005, 
which provided the Commission with explicit anti-manipulation 
authority, and that rescission will simplify and streamline the rules 
and regulations sellers must follow, yet not eliminate beneficial rules 
governing market behavior.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Amendments to Codes of Conduct for Unbundled Sales 
Service and for Persons Holding Blanket Marketing Certificates, 113 
FERC ] 61,189 (2005) (November 21 NOPR).
    \15\ Id. at P 20.
    \16\ Id. at P 11. At the same time we issued an order in Docket 
No. EL06-16-000 proposing similar changes to the behavior rules 
applicable to wholesale sellers of electricity at market-based 
rates. See Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility 
Market-Based Rate Authorizations, ``Order Proposing Revisions to 
Market-Based Rate Tariffs and Authorizations,'' 113 FERC ] 61,190 
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. The Commission received 11 comments and one reply comment in

[[Page 9711]]

response to the November 21 NOPR.\17\ Many of the comments support the 
Commission's overall objectives in this proceeding, that is, to 
simplify the Commission's rules and regulations, avoid confusion, and 
provide greater clarity and regulatory certainty to the industry, while 
not eliminating beneficial rules governing market behavior by 
addressing them in other rules and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Entities filing comments and reply comments are listed in 
the Appendix to this order, along with the acronyms for such 
commenters. The Commission has accepted and considered all comments 
filed, including late-filed comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. On January 19, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 670, 
adopting regulations implementing the EPAct 2005 anti-manipulation 
provisions. In Order No. 670 the Commission adopted a new part 1c of 
our regulations under which it is ``unlawful for any entity, directly 
or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of natural gas 
or the purchase or sale of transportation services subject to the 
jurisdiction of the Commission, (1) to use or employ any device, 
scheme, or artifice to defraud, (2) to make any untrue statement of a 
material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to 
make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which 
they were made, not misleading, or (3) to engage in any act, practice, 
or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or 
deceit upon any entity.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 18 CFR 1c.1, 71 FR 4244 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Sections 284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's Regulations

    13. In the November 21 NOPR the Commission sought comment on 
whether there is a need or basis for retaining Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) 
and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations in light of the then-
proposed anti-manipulation rule, and whether the Commission should 
retain in any form the affirmative defense of ``legitimate business 
purpose'' in existing Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the 
Commission's regulations.
1. Should the Commission Retain or Rescind Sections 284.288(a) and 
284.403(a) of the Commission's Regulations?
a. Comments
    14. Commenters were divided on the issue of whether Sec. Sec.  
284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations should be 
retained or rescinded in light of the anti-manipulation provisions. 
Those in favor of retaining Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the 
Commission's regulations argue two principal points: First, the 
foreseeability standard of Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the 
Commission's regulations reaches negligent conduct or other conduct 
that falls short of being ``provably'' intentional but nonetheless has 
a foreseeable impact on rates; and second, Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 
284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations have lasting utility because 
they provide a remedy for activities that may not be fraudulent, but 
could nevertheless function to manipulate prices for certain sales of 
natural gas.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ CPUC at 2-8; NASUCA at 5-10; NJBPU at 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Several commenters argue that Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 
284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations should be retained because 
they prohibit conduct that ``foreseeably could manipulate market 
prices,'' and do not require the showing of scienter (intentional or 
reckless conduct), which means that Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 
284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations reach a broader range of 
conduct that may adversely affect consumers and energy markets than 
would the proposed anti-manipulation rule alone.\20\ CPUC and others 
argue that nothing in EPAct 2005 dictates or justifies the repeal of 
Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations. 
They argue that, in determining whether rates are just and reasonable, 
the Commission should only focus on the effect of a seller's action and 
not on the seller's intent, and that relying solely on intent may 
result in rates becoming unjust and unreasonable because it would limit 
the Commission's ability to remedy conduct falling short of being 
intentional but whose rate-altering effect is foreseeable.\21\ CPUC 
argues that there is no risk of confusion created by having both 
Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations 
and the anti-manipulation rule promulgated pursuant to EPAct 2005.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ CPUC at 2-8; NASUCA at 5; NJBPU at 5-6.
    \21\ CPUC at 5; NASUCA at 5, 8.
    \22\ CPUC at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Commenters advocating rescission of Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 
284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations argue three main points. 
First, commenters argue that the Commission should not retain the 
foreseeability standard of proof of Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 
284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations because of the clear 
Congressional intent in section 315 of EPAct 2005, which directs the 
Commission to adopt a standard of proof based upon scienter.\23\ 
Second, commenters supporting rescission argue that there should be 
only one definition or standard to define what constitutes market 
manipulation. Retaining two sets of proscriptions, they argue, could 
lead to regulatory uncertainty and confusion,\24\ and would be unduly 
discriminatory because of a dual standard applicable to jurisdictional 
sellers of natural gas while the remaining industry participants would 
be covered solely by the new standard of Sec.  1c.1.\25\ Third, the 
anti-manipulation regulations represent an improvement over Sec. Sec.  
284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations because, 
among other things, the language of new Sec.  1c.1 provides 
stakeholders with clarity of language not present in Sec. Sec.  
284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Cinergy at 6.
    \24\ INGAA at 6; NGSA at 3; AGA at 4 (arguing that this 
uncertainty that will deter otherwise proper market conduct, thereby 
promoting market inefficiency and causing a dampening effect on a 
competitive market).
    \25\ Cinergy at 6-7.
    \26\ Cinergy at 5 (arguing that the generic provision of 
sections 284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations 
is unlawful in its vagueness and, as a certificate condition, is 
contrary to the statutory scheme of the NGA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Indicated Market Participants argue that the anti-manipulation 
final rule should implement the scienter standard to conform to 
Congressional intent under the new NGA section 4A.\27\ However, 
Indicated Market Participants and CPUC recommend that the other 
language in Sec. Sec.  284.288(a)(1)-(2) and 284.403(a)(1)-(2), 
prohibiting wash trades and collusion, should be incorporated into the 
anti-manipulation final rule to provide clearer guidance to market 
participants.\28\ APGA and NJBPU state that it would be satisfactory if 
the Commission clarified in the preamble to the anti-manipulation rule 
that wash trades and collusive sales remain prohibited.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Indicated Market Participants at 10.
    \28\ Indicated Market Participants at 13; CPUC at 3, 8.
    \29\ APGA at 5; NJBPU at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    18. The Commission finds it unnecessary to retain Sec. Sec.  
284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations. Congress 
prohibited market manipulation by any entity and defined manipulation 
to include the requirement of scienter.\30\ It would be

[[Page 9712]]

inconsistent with Congress' direction if foreseeability were retained 
as a lesser standard of proof for market manipulation perpetrated by 
pipelines that provide unbundled natural gas sales service and holders 
of blanket certificate authority that make sales for resale of natural 
gas. To avoid the potential for uneven application of regulatory 
requirements based on whether a seller is a pipeline providing 
unbundled natural gas sales service or a holder of blanket certificate 
authority making sales for resale of natural gas, or any other entity 
purchasing or selling natural gas or transportation services subject to 
the jurisdiction of the Commission, the same standard of proof should 
apply to all entities for purposes of determining whether market 
manipulation occurred. It is not appropriate, as some commenters 
suggest, for the Commission to maintain a lesser standard of proof for 
only certain sellers of natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In new 4A of the NGA, Congress used the terms 
``manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance'' and directed 
that they be given the same meaning as used in section 10b of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It is well settled that those terms 
require a showing of scienter, that is, an intent to deceive, 
manipulate or defraud. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 
201 (1976). See Order No. 670, 114 FERC ] 61,047 at P 52-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. With respect to the suggestion that the specific proscribed 
behaviors in Sec. Sec.  284.288(a)(1)-(2) and 284.403(a)(1)-(2) of the 
Commission's regulations be retained, the Commission finds this 
unnecessary. As we stated in issuing the new anti-manipulation rule, 
the specifically prohibited actions in Sec. Sec.  284.288(a)(1)-(2) and 
284.403(a)(1)-(2) (i.e., wash trades and collusion) are both prohibited 
activities under new Sec.  1c.1 of our regulations and are subject to 
punitive and remedial action.\31\ Furthermore, we recognize that fraud 
is a very fact-specific violation, the permutations of which are 
limited only by the imagination of the perpetrator. Therefore, no list 
of prohibited activities could be all-inclusive. The absence of a list 
of specific prohibited activities does not lessen the reach of the new 
anti-manipulation rule, nor are we foreclosing the possibility that we 
may need to amplify Sec.  1c.1 as we gain experience with the new rule, 
just as the SEC has done.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Order No. 670, 114 FERC ] 61,047 at P 59.
    \32\ After considerable experience with Rule 10b-5, upon which 
our new anti-manipulation rule is modeled, the SEC has expanded the 
original Rule 10b-5 to add a number of specific provisions 
describing prohibited conduct. See 17 CFR 240.10b-5-1 through 
240.10b5-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. In short, rescission of Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) and 284.403(a) of 
the Commission's regulations is consistent with Congressional direction 
and will not dilute customer protection. If conduct occurs that is not 
the result of fraud or deceit but nonetheless results in unjust and 
unreasonable rates, a person may file a complaint at the Commission 
under NGA section 5, or the Commission on its own motion may institute 
a proceeding under section 5, to modify the rates that have become 
unjust and unreasonable. In many respects customers are better 
protected by Sec.  1c.1's breadth and purposeful design as a broad 
``catch all'' anti-fraud provision.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 690 (1980); see also Schreiber 
v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 472 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1985) (describing 
section 10(b) as a ``general prohibition of practices * * * 
artificially affecting market activity in order to mislead investors 
* * *.''); Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 
U.S. 128, 151-53 (1972) (noting that the repeated use of the word 
``any'' in section 10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5 denotes a congressional 
intent to have the provisions apply to a wide range of practices).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Legitimate Business Purpose
a. Comments
    21. Commenters are divided on whether the Commission should retain 
the ``legitimate business purpose'' provision of Sec. Sec.  284.288(a) 
and 284.403(a) of the Commission's regulations. Indicated Market 
Participants argue that a legitimate business purpose should be a 
complete defense to an allegation of market manipulation, and that this 
provision should be incorporated into the anti-manipulation final 
rule.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Indicated Market Participants at 10-11, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. AGA, on the other hand, argues that retention of the legitimate 
business purpose defense, as a matter of explicit language in the 
regulations, runs the risk of generating uncertainty.\35\ AGA, NASUCA, 
and INGAA explain, however, that an action taken for a legitimate 
business purpose would be lacking in scienter or, alternatively, would 
provide an affirmative defense to allegations of market 
manipulation.\36\ Nevertheless, AGA requests that the Commission 
clarify that, although the legitimate business purpose language is to 
be removed from Sec. Sec.  284.288 and 284.403, the concept continues 
to have an integral place within the scope of section 315 of EPAct 2005 
and the new anti-manipulation regulations.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ AGA at 6.
    \36\ AGA at 6; NASUCA at 20; INGAA at 6.
    \37\ AGA at 6. See also INGAA at 6 (urging the Commission not to 
disavow the legitimate business purpose defense, which is relevant 
to the question of scienter under the new anti-manipulation rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. CPUC argues that the legitimate business purpose should not be 
permitted as a defense to the proposed anti-manipulation regulations as 
it is analogous to a good faith defense, which is not allowed as a 
defense to intentional or reckless conduct in the context of SEC 
section 10(b).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ CPUC at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Commission Determination
    24. In promulgating Sec.  1c.1, the Commission purposefully modeled 
its anti-manipulation rule after SEC Rule 10b-5 to provide stakeholders 
with as much regulatory certainty and clarity as possible, given the 
large body of precedent interpreting SEC Rule 10b-5.\39\ SEC Rule 10b-5 
does not include provisions for ``good faith'' defenses. However, in 
all cases, the intent behind and rationale for actions taken by an 
entity will be examined and taken into consideration as part of 
determining whether the actions were manipulative behavior. The reasons 
given by an entity for its actions are part of the overall facts and 
circumstances that will be weighed in deciding whether a violation of 
the new anti-manipulation regulation has occurred. Therefore, the 
Commission rejects calls for inclusion of a ``legitimate business 
purpose'' affirmative defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Order No. 670, 114 FERC ] 61,047 at P 30-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Sections 284.288(b) and 284.403(b) of the Commission's Regulations

    25. The November 21 NOPR sought comment on whether it was necessary 
to retain Sec. Sec.  284.288(b) and 284.403(b) of the Commission's 
regulations.\40\ The Commission stated its view that the first part of 
Sec. Sec.  284.288(b) and 284.403(b), requiring sellers to provide 
accurate data to price index publishers if the seller is reporting 
transactions to such publishers, calls for accurate and truthful 
representations, and a failure to do so would be a violation of the 
proposed anti-manipulation regulations.\41\ The Commission stated that 
the second part of Sec. Sec.  284.288(b) and 284.403(b) of the 
Commission's regulations, requiring that sellers notify the Commission 
of their price reporting status and any changes in that status, does 
not appear elsewhere in our current or proposed regulations. The 
Commission noted, however, that price transparency is also addressed by 
EPAct 2005, which adds new section 23 to the NGA, giving us authority 
to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to facilitate price 
transparency. Thus, the Commission stated that it intends to address 
market transparency issues in a separate proceeding, and anticipates 
that rules adopted in that proceeding will address the Sec. Sec.  
284.288(b) and 284.403(b) requirements for providing transaction 
information to price index publishers and informing the Commission of 
price reporting status.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ November 21 NOPR, 113 FERC ] 61,189 at 20.
    \41\ November 21 NOPR, 113 FERC ] 61,189 at 16.
    \42\ November 21 NOPR, 113 FERC ] 61,189 at 16.

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

[[Page 9713]]

1. Comments
    26. Commenters agree that it is not necessary to retain the 
requirement of Sec. Sec.  284.288(b) and 284.403(b) of the Commission's 
regulations to report transaction information accurately, if the 
obligation is incorporated elsewhere. APGA and NGSA state that it would 
be satisfactory if the Commission clarified in the preamble to the 
anti-manipulation rule that accurate and truthful representations of 
price data remain a requirement.\43\ AGA asserts that it would be 
prudent for the Commission to explicitly reiterate its commitment to 
its Price Index Policy Statement.\44\ Similarly, Indicated Market 
Participants argue that Sec. Sec.  284.288(b) and 284.403(b) of the 
Commission's regulations need not be retained since these requirements 
will be adequately addressed by the new anti-manipulation regulations, 
to the extent market manipulation is involved, by the Commission's 
Price Index Policy Statement, and by any new proceeding initiated by 
the Commission to implement section 23 of the NGA.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ APGA at 6; NGSA at 3-5.
    \44\ AGA at 5.
    \45\ Indicated Market Participants at 16-19 (noting the 
advantage of a new proceeding that will broaden the applicability of 
this policy beyond certain blanket certificate holders under the 
codes of conduct regulations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. However, NJBPU strongly encourages the Commission to adopt new 
rules on pricing transparency (and the record retention requirement to 
reconstruct prices) before, or at a minimum, contemporaneous with the 
repeal of the existing marketing transparency rules.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ NJBPU at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. CPUC argues that Sec. Sec.  284.288(b) and 284.403(b) of the 
Commission's regulations should be retained, because they identify 
known manipulative conduct, such as false reports to publishers of 
natural gas indices, which are not subsumed within the Commission's 
proposed or other existing regulations.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ CPUC at 3, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    29. Sections 284.288(b) and 284.403(b) of the Commission's 
regulations require sellers to provide accurate data to price index 
publishers, if the seller is reporting transactions to such publishers, 
and includes a requirement that sellers notify the Commission of their 
price reporting status and of any changes in that status. Upon 
consideration of the comments, we have determined that there is benefit 
to retaining Sec. Sec.  284.288(b) and 284.403(b) of the Commission's 
regulations. While a deliberate false report would be a violation of 
Order No. 670, there is no confusion in retaining this statement in our 
existing regulations and thereby reinforcing the importance of the 
Price Index Policy Statement. Moreover, the second aspect of Sec. Sec.  
284.288(b) and 284.403(b) of the Commission's regulations, notification 
to the Commission of the market participant's price reporting status 
and of any changes in that status, is not otherwise provided for. Thus, 
we will retain these regulatory requirements. This is a simple and non-
burdensome way for the Commission to be informed of the prevalence of 
price reporting to price index developers.

C. Sections 284.288(c) and 284.403(c) of the Commission's Regulations

    30. The November 21 NOPR also sought comment on the need to retain 
Sec. Sec.  284.288(c) and 284.403(c) of the Commission's regulations, 
which requires sellers to maintain certain records for a period of 
three years. The Commission stated that while it is important that all 
pipelines providing unbundled natural gas sales service and all persons 
holding blanket certificates making natural gas sales for resale in 
interstate commerce retain the data and information described in 
Sec. Sec.  284.288(c) and 284.403(c) of the Commission's regulations, 
we intend to address this retention requirement in the context of our 
rules under the NGA, such that there will be no gap in the retention 
requirement.
1. Comments
    31. Commenters generally recommended that the record retention 
requirement be retained, although they suggested different ways in 
which this would be accomplished. CPUC states that Sec. Sec.  
284.288(c) and 284.403(c) of the Commission's regulations should be 
retained since these requirements are not subsumed within the 
Commission's proposed or other existing regulations.\48\ APGA argues 
that it is premature to eliminate the existing procedural requirements, 
such as the record retention requirements under Sec. Sec.  284.288(c) 
and 284.403(c) of the Commission's regulations (and the price reporting 
requirements), when it is unknown what requirements will be implemented 
under future regulations or when those requirements will be make 
effective.\49\ Thus, APGA maintains that any proposed elimination of 
procedural requirements must be coordinated with and based on specific 
proposals for replacement procedural requirements.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ CPUC at 3, 7.
    \49\ APGA at 6.
    \50\ Id. See also NJBPU at 7-8 (encouraging the Commission to 
adopt new rules on the three-year record retention requirement 
before, or at a minimum, contemporaneous with the repeal of the 
existing requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. The Indicated Market Participants, however, state that the 
record retention requirement more appropriately belongs in the 
Commission's general regulations so that it will be applicable to more 
than just certain blanket certificate holders.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Indicated Market Participants at 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    33. Sections 284.288(c) and 284.403(c) of the Commission's 
regulations requires sellers to maintain certain records for a period 
of three years to reconstruct prices charged for natural gas. This is 
different from the record retention requirements in part 225 of our 
regulations, which largely are related to cost-of-service rate 
requirements.\52\ Upon consideration of the comments, we have 
determined that there is benefit to retaining Sec. Sec.  284.288(c) and 
284.403(c) of the Commission's regulations. Given the importance of 
records related to any investigation of possible wrongdoing, and in 
order to avoid confusion, we will retain Sec. Sec.  284.288(c) and 
284.403(c) of the Commission's regulations on the record retention 
requirements. We reject Indicated Market Participant's suggestion to 
expand the scope of the record retention requirement beyond pipeline 
unbundled sales and blanket certificate sales, as other jurisdictional 
sales are made under cost-based tariffs.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 18 CFR part 225 (2005).
    \53\ As noted above, in a notice of proposed rulemaking issued 
simultaneously with this Final Rule, Docket No. RM06-14-000, the 
Commission is proposing to extend the record retention requirements 
from three to five years to be consistent with the statute of 
limitations that would apply to actions seeking civil penalties for 
alleged violations of the new anti-manipulation rule implemented in 
Order No. 670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Sections 284.288(d) and 284.403(d) of the Commission's Regulations

    34. The November 21 NOPR also sought comment on the need to retain 
Sec. Sec.  284.288(d) and 284.403(d) of the Commission's regulations. 
The Commission stated its view that if it decides to repeal Sec. Sec.  
284.288(a)-(c) and 284.403(a)-(c) of its regulations, Sec. Sec.  
284.288(d) and 284.403(d) of the Commissions' regulations, dealing with 
remedies, are largely procedural and would become superfluous without 
the underlying operative paragraphs and therefore should be deleted.

[[Page 9714]]

1. Comments
    35. As noted above, some commenters advocate rescission of the 
codes of conduct regulations in their entirety.\54\ NASUCA, however, 
notes the pending judicial challenges to Sec. Sec.  284.288 and 284.403 
of the Commission's regulations, which claim that the disgorgement 
remedy is retroactive ratemaking in violation of section 7 of the NGA. 
NASUCA urges the Commission not to capitulate to these challenges by 
repealing these rules and the disgorgement remedy in Sec. Sec.  
284.288(d) and 284.403(d) of the Commission's regulations.\55\ NASUCA 
argues that the Commission should not, in an effort to provide greater 
clarity and regulatory certainty to the industry, eliminate profit 
disgorgement as a deterrent to manipulation and a remedy for 
manipulation. If it is not the intent of the Commission to abandon the 
disgorgement remedy, then NASUCA argues that Sec. Sec.  284.288(d) and 
284.403(d) of the regulations authorizing disgorgement should be 
retained.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ AGA at 5; Cinergy at 4; NGSA at 3.
    \55\ NASUCA at 12.
    \56\ NASUCA at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. APGA argues that the Commission must add to the anti-
manipulation final rule the condition that a violation of the rule may 
trigger a disgorgement of profits from the time the violation occurred 
as well as suspension or revocation of the blanket certificate, since 
this condition was justified for Sec. Sec.  284.288 and 284.403 of the 
Commission's regulations as fulfilling the Commission's obligation to 
appropriately monitor markets and to ensure that market-based rates 
remain within the zone of reasonableness required by the NGA.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ APGA at 5-6 (citing Order No. 644, 105 FERC ] 61,217 at P 
91 (2003), reh'g denied, 107 FERC ] 61,174).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. CPUC states that in the November 21 NOPR, the Commission does 
not address remedies for violation of the new anti-manipulation 
regulations, or whether the same remedies will apply as for Sec. Sec.  
284.288(d) and 284.403(d) of the Commission's regulations.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ CPUC at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    38. Concerns over the extent of the Commission's remedial powers 
are misplaced. Order No. 644 addressed a concern, stemming from the 
abuses in Western markets in 2000-2001, that there were not clear rules 
to deal with abusive market conduct. By fashioning regulations 
prohibiting manipulation, we established a clear basis for ordering 
disgorgement of unjust profits, along with other remedial actions, in 
the event of violations of such rules.\59\ With the issuance of Order 
No. 670 and the availability of significant civil monetary penalties 
for violations, the Commission now has a more complete set of 
enforcement tools--both rules and remedies and/or sanctions--to deal 
with market manipulation. The Commission will use these authorities as 
the facts and circumstances of each case indicate, as our discretion is 
at its zenith in determining an appropriate remedy for violations.\60\ 
Accordingly, if companies subject to our jurisdiction violate the 
statutes, orders, rules, or regulations administered by the Commission, 
the Commission can order, among other things, disgorgement of unjust 
profits.\61\ The Commission also has the option of conditioning, 
suspending, or revoking market-based rate authority, certificate 
authority, or blanket certificate authority.\62\ Moreover, while 
section 5 of the NGA does not permit the Commission to establish just 
and reasonable rates prior to the refund effective date established 
under section 5, the Commission clearly has authority to order 
disgorgement of profits associated with an illegally charged rate, 
i.e., a rate other than the rate on file or in violation of a 
Commission rule, order, regulation, or tariff on file.\63\ Therefore, 
the Commission may use disgorgement of unjust profits where 
appropriate, including to remedy a violation of the new anti-
manipulation regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Order No. 644, 105 FERC ] 61,217 at P 95 (2003), reh'g 
denied 107 FERC ] 61,174 (stating ``[i]n appropriate circumstances 
these remedies may include disgorgement of unjust profits, 
suspension or revocation of the blanket sales provision or other 
appropriate non-monetary remedies. Which of these remedies is 
appropriate will depend on the circumstances of the case before it 
and the Commission will not determine here which remedy or remedies 
it will utilize.'').
    \60\ See Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. FERC, 379 F.2d 153, 159 
(D.C. Cir. 1967); accord 16 U.S.C. 825h (2000); Mesa Petroleum Co. 
v. FERC, 441 F.2d 182, 187-88 (D.C. Cir. 1971); Gulf Oil Corporation 
v. FPC, 563 F.2d 588, 608 (3rd Cir. 1977), cert. denied 434 U.S. 
1062, reh'g denied, 435 U.S. 981 (1978); Consolidated Gas 
Transmission Corp. v. FERC, 771 F.2d 1536, 1549 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
    \61\ See, e.g., Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. FERC, 
998 F.2d 1313, 1320 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding the remedy of 
disgorgement of ill-gotten profits for a violation of the Natural 
Gas Act ``well within [the Commission's] equitable powers''); 
Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. FERC, 782 F.2d 1249, 1253 (5th Cir. 1986) 
(profits from illegal intrastate sales of gas in excess of a just 
and reasonable rate may be subject to disgorgement).
    \62\ See, e.g., Enron Power Marketing, Inc., 103 FERC ] 61,343 
at 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, order on reh'g, 97 FERC ] 61,275 (2001), order on 
reh'g, 99 FERC ] 61,160 (2002); accord Enron Power Marketing, Inc., 
``Order Proposing Revocation of Market-Based Rate Authority and 
Termination of Blanket Marketing Certificates,'' 102 FERC ] 61,316 
at P 8 and n.10 (2003), and cases cited therein.
    \63\ Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 998 F.2d 1313 at 
1320; see also Dominion Resources, Inc. et al., 108 FERC ] 61,110 
(2004) (disgorgement for violations of the Commission's Standards of 
Conduct); El Paso Electric Company, 105 FERC ] 61,131 at P35 (2003) 
(finding disgorgement an ``appropriate and proportionate remedy'' 
for a violation of the Federal Power Act); Kinder Morgan Interstate 
Gas Transmission LLC, 90 FERC ] 61,310 (2000) (disgorgement ordered 
to remedy preferential discounts to affiliates); Stowers Oil & Gas 
Company, 44 FERC ] 61,128 (1988), reh. denied in part and granted in 
part, 48 FERC ] 61,230 at 61,817 (1989), appeal dismissed sub nom. 
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. FERC, Case Nos. 89-1512 et al., (D.C. 
Cir. 1992) (Commission ``properly exercised its broad equitable 
power'' in requiring disgorgement of unjust enrichment resulting 
from illegal sales of gas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. EPAct 2005 has enhanced the Commission's civil penalty 
authority.\64\ Civil penalties, however, serve a different purpose from 
disgorgement or other equitable remedies. As we have said, the purpose 
of civil penalties is to ``encourage compliance with the law.'' \65\ 
The purpose of disgorgement, on the other hand, is to remedy unjust 
enrichment. The Commission will choose from the full range of available 
remedies and penalties--revocation, suspension, or conditioning of 
authority, disgorgement, and civil penalties--according to the nature 
of the violation and all of the facts presented. The imposition of both 
remedies and civil penalties in tandem may be necessary under certain 
circumstances to reach a fair result.\66\ These are separate powers 
available to the Commission, as they arise under different provisions 
of the NGA.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ EPAct 2005 for the first time granted the Commission 
authority to assess civil penalties for violations of the NGA and 
rules, regulations, restrictions, conditions and orders thereunder 
(EPAct 2005 section 314(b)(1), inserting new NGA section 22), and 
established the maximum civil penalty the Commission could assess 
under the NGA and the NGPA as $1 million per day per violation. 
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).
    \65\ Procedures for the Assessment of Civil Penalties under 
section 31 of the Federal Power Act, Order No. 502, 53 FR 32035 
(Aug. 23, 1988), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,828 (Aug. 17, 1988).
    \66\ Policy Statement on Enforcement, 113 FERC ] 61,068 at P 12 
(2005) (stating, ``[o]ur 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'').
    \67\ The authority to order disgorgement and other equitable 
remedies arises under the ``necessary or appropriate'' powers of 
section 16 of the NGA. 15 U.S.C. 717o. The authority to impose civil 
penalties arises under section 22 of the NGA and section 
504(b)(6)(A) of the NGPA, as amended by EPAct 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. We note that other agencies also impose civil penalties and 
equitable remedies in tandem. For example, the

[[Page 9715]]

SEC can require an accounting and disgorgement to investors for losses 
and also impose penalties for the misconduct, and the CFTC can order 
restitution or obtain disgorgement and also impose fines for 
violations.\68\ Similarly, in the environmental context, the government 
is free to seek an equitable remedy in addition to, or independent of, 
civil penalties.\69\ When we impose disgorgement as a remedy, we have 
broad discretion in allocating monies to those injured by the 
violations. As we noted in our Policy Statement on Enforcement, each 
case depends on the circumstances presented, and the Commission will 
not predetermine which remedy and/or sanction authorities it will 
use.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See sections 21-21C of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 
U.S.C. 78u-78u-3 (2000); SEC v. Happ, 392 F.3d 12, 31-33 (1st Cir. 
2004) (upholding SEC's imposition of both disgorgement and a civil 
penalty equal to the amount of disgorgement; further, the court 
noted that the wrongdoer bears the risk of uncertainty in 
calculating the amount of disgorgement). 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 and 13b (2000); Comm. Fut. 
L. Rep. (CCH) ] 26,265 at 42,247 (1994).
    \69\ See, e.g., Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 425 (1987) 
(holding that the Clean Water Act does not intertwine equitable 
relief with the imposition of civil penalties; instead, each kind of 
relief is separately authorized in distinct statutory provisions).
    \70\ Policy Statement on Enforcement, 113 FERC ] 61,068 at P 13 
(2005) (``[W]e 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. In light of the Commission's new monetary civil penalty 
authority set forth in EPAct 2005, and in light of our explanation 
above regarding the Commission's intent to choose from the full range 
of available remedies and penalties--revocation, suspension, or 
conditioning of authority, disgorgement, and civil penalties--according 
to the nature of the violation and all of the facts presented, the 
Commission does not see the need to retain Sec. Sec.  284.288(d) and 
284.403(d) of the Commission's regulations, which explains that the 
Commission may subject violators of the codes of conduct regulations to 
disgorgement of unjust profits, suspension, revocation of its blanket 
certificate, or other appropriate non-monetary remedies. Having only 
one set of rules governing remedies will avoid confusion and provide 
greater clarity and regulatory certainty to the industry.

E. Sections 284.288(e) and 284.403(e) of the Commission's Regulations

    42. In the November 21 NOPR, the Commission stated its view that if 
it decides to repeal Sec. Sec.  284.288(a)-(c) and 284.403(a)-(c) of 
its regulations, Sec. Sec.  284.288(e) and 284.404(e), dealing with 
time limits on complaints and Commission enforcement, are largely 
procedural and would become superfluous without the underlying 
operative paragraphs and therefore should be deleted.
1. Comments
    43. Although some commenters advocated repeal of the codes of 
conduct regulations in their entirety, only two commenters address 
Sec. Sec.  284.288(e) and 284.403(e) of the Commission's regulations 
dealing with time limits on complaints and Commission enforcement.
    44. CPUC states that in the November 21 NOPR, the Commission does 
not address complaint procedures for violation of the new anti-
manipulation regulations, or whether the same complaint procedures will 
apply as in Sec. Sec.  284.288(e) and 284.403(e) of the Commission's 
regulations.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ CPUC at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. INGAA argues that the Commission should preserve the time 
limits under Sec. Sec.  284.288(e) and 284.403(e) of the Commission's 
regulations for filing a complaint under the new anti-manipulation 
regulations or for Commission action on a market manipulation 
allegation.\72\ INGAA maintains that Sec. Sec.  284.288(e) and 
284.403(e) of the Commission's regulations require that an action must 
be filed within 90 days after the end of the calendar quarter in which 
the alleged violation occurred or, if later, 90 days after the 
complainant knew or should have known that the alleged violation 
occurred. Further, Sec. Sec.  284.288(e) and 284.403(e) of the 
Commission's regulations also require that the Commission take action 
within 90 days from learning of an alleged violation of the code of 
conduct regulations. According to INGAA, whether this is accomplished 
through the existing codes of conduct regulations or by amending the 
proposed anti-manipulation regulations, such a statute of limitations 
will preserve a needed degree of certainty and stability in the 
transition to new rules.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ INGAA at 2, 5.
    \73\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    46. In Order No. 670, we noted that when a statutory provision 
under which civil penalties may be imposed lacks its own statute of 
limitations (as is the case with respect to the Commission's anti-
manipulation authority), a five-year statute of limitations applicable 
to the imposition of civil penalties applies, and specifically rejected 
requests to retain the 90-day period used for the Market Behavior 
Rules.\74\ Consistent with the discussion of this issue in Order No. 
670, we hereby reject requests to retain the 90-day requirement. 
Moreover, the Commission hereby rescinds Sec. Sec.  284.288(e) and 
284.404(e) of the Commission's regulations, dealing with time limits on 
complaints and Commission enforcement, as inconsistent with the more 
definitive statement on complaint procedures set forth in Order No. 
670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Order No. 670, 114 FERC ] 61,047 at P 62-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    47. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 \75\ generally requires 
a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\76\ The 
Commission is not required to make such analyses if a rule would not 
have such an effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2000).
    \76\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the 
definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a 
``small business concern'' as a business which is independently 
owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of 
operation. 15 U.S.C. 632 (2000). The Small Business Size Standards 
component of the North American Industry Classification System 
defines a small electric utility as one that, including its 
affiliates, is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, 
and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and whose total 
electric output for the preceding fiscal years did not exceed 4 
million MWh. 13 CFR 121.201 (section 22, Utilities, North American 
Industry Classification System, NAICS) (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. The Commission concludes that this Final Rule would not have 
such an impact on small entities. This Final Rule rescinds Sec. Sec.  
284.288(a), (d) and (e) and 284.403(a), (d) and (e) of the Commission's 
codes of conduct regulations, which have been supplanted by the 
recently issued Order No. 670, which implements EPAct 2005. Therefore, 
the Commission certifies that this Final Rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    49. This Final Rule merely rescinds Sec. Sec.  284.288(a), (d) and 
(e) and 284.403(a),

[[Page 9716]]

(d) and (e) of the Commission's regulations pertaining to codes of 
conduct with respect to certain sales of natural gas and does not 
include new information requirements under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

V. Environmental Statement

    50. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may 
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\77\ The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this 
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, 
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the 
effect of the regulations being amended.\78\ Thus, we affirm the 
finding we made in the NOPR that this Final Rule is procedural in 
nature and therefore falls under this exception; consequently, no 
environmental consideration would be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 
(1987).
    \78\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

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

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    54. This final rule will take effect on March 29, 2006. The 
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 
Management and Budget, that this rule is not a major rule within the 
meaning of section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996.\79\ The Commission will submit the Final Rule to 
both houses of Congress and the Government Accountability Office.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2) (2000).
    \80\ 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 284

    Natural Gas, Pipelines, Investigations, Penalties.

    By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 284, 
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 284--CERTAIN SALES AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS UNDER THE 
NATURAL GAS POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND RELATED AUTHORITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 284 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7532; 
43 U.S.C. 1331-1356.

Sec.  284.288  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  284.288, paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) are removed, and 
paragraphs (b) and (c) are redesignated as paragraphs (a) and (b), 
respectively.


Sec.  284.403  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  284.403, paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) are removed, and 
paragraphs (b) and (c) are redesignated as paragraphs (a) and (b), 
respectively.


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

Appendix--List of Parties Filing Comments and Reply Comments and 
Acronyms

American Gas Association (AGA)
American Public Gas Association (APGA)
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) **
Cinergy Services, Inc. and Cinergy Marketing & Trading, LP (Cinergy)
Constellation Energy Group Inc., et al. (Indicated Market 
Participants)
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Missouri Public Service Commission (MoPSC)*
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA)
Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA)
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU)
New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC)

*Entities filing late comments.
**Entities filing reply comments in addition to initial comments.

[FR Doc. 06-1718 Filed 2-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P