C.F.R. » Title 18 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY › SUBCHAPTER X—PROCEDURAL RULES › PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE › Subpart O—Procedures for the Assessment of Civil Penalties Under Section 31 of the Federal Power Act

18 C.F.R. § 385.1505

Determination of proposed penalty amount (Rule 1505)

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In determining the amount of a proposed penalty, the Commission will consider the nature and seriousness of the violation, and the efforts of the licensee, exemptee, permittee or one who should possess appropriate authority but does not, to remedy the violation in a timely manner.

(b) In making its determination under paragraph (a), the Commission will consider the following factors:

(1) Whether the person had actual knowledge of the violation;

(2) Whether the person had constructive knowledge of the violation deemed to be possessed by a reasonable individual acting under similar circumstances;

(3) Whether the person has a history of previous violations;

(4) Whether the violation caused loss of life or injury to persons;

(5) Whether economic benefits were derived because of the violation;

(6) Whether the violation caused damage to property or the environment;

(7) Whether the violation endangered persons, property or the environment;

(8) Whether there were timely remedial efforts;

(9) Whether there were untimely remedial efforts;

(10) Whether there were no remedial efforts; and

(11) Whether there are any other pertinent considerations.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1996–1996 · leading case: Util. L. Rep. P 14,084 Bluestone Energy Design, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 74 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Util. L. Rep. P 14,084 Bluestone Energy Design, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 74 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “See 18 C.F.R. § 385.1505 (b) (1995). The Commission’s list ends with a catch-all: “[wjhether there are any other pertinent considerations.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.