Effective Date Final Rules Best Efforts in Admin Fines Challenges by FEC

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 7

									                                             14662             Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

                                             extensively to the stabilization of                     all entities, both large and small, were                Dated: March 23, 2007.
                                             producer prices, which prior to 1980                    able to express views on this issue.                  Lloyd C. Day,
                                             experienced wide fluctuations from                         A proposed rule concerning this                    Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
                                             year-to-year. National Agricultural                     action was published in the Federal                   Service.
                                             Statistics Service records show that the                Register on January 22, 2007 (71 FR                   [FR Doc. E7–5811 Filed 3–28–07; 8:45 am]
                                             average price paid for both classes of                  2639). Copies of the rule were provided               BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
                                             spearmint oil ranged from $4.00 per                     to Committee staff, which in turn made
                                             pound to $11.10 per pound during the                    it available to spearmint oil producers,
                                             period between 1968 and 1980. Prices                    handlers, and other interested person.
                                             have been consistently more stable since                Finally, the rule was made available                  FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
                                             the marketing order’s inception in 1980,                through the Internet by the Office of the
                                             with an average price for the period                    Federal Register and USDA. A 30-day                   11 CFR Part 111
                                             from 1980 to 2005 of $12.72 per pound                   comment period ending February 21,
                                             for Scotch spearmint oil and $9.84 per                  2007, was provided to allow interested                [Notice 2007–7]
                                             pound for Native spearmint oil.                         persons to respond to the proposal. No
                                                During the period of 1998 through                    comments were received.                               Best Efforts in Administrative Fines
                                             2005, however, large production and                        A small business guide on complying                Challenges
                                             carry-in inventories have contributed to                with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
                                             prices below the 26-year average,                       marketing agreements and orders may                   AGENCY:   Federal Election Commission.
                                             despite the Committee’s efforts to                      be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/                ACTION: Final Rules and Transmittal of
                                             balance available supplies with                         fv/moab.html. Any questions about the                 Rules to Congress.
                                             demand. Prices have ranged from $8.00                   compliance guide should be sent to Jay
                                             to $11.00 per pound for Scotch                          Guerber at the previously mentioned                   SUMMARY: The Federal Election
                                             spearmint oil and between $9.10 and                     address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION                Commission is revising its regulations to
                                             $10.00 per pound for Native spearmint                   CONTACT section.                                      amend four aspects of its Administrative
                                             oil. The 2005 Native price exceeded the                    After consideration of all relevant                Fines Program (‘‘AFP’’), a streamlined
                                             26-year average by $0.16. Producers                     matter presented, including the                       process through which the Commission
                                             stated, however, that fuel cost increases               information and recommendation                        assesses civil money penalties for late
                                             more than offset the price increase.                    submitted by the Committee and other                  filers and non-filers under the Federal
                                                According to the Committee, the                      available information, it is hereby found             Election Campaign Act of 1971, as
                                             recommended salable quantities and                      that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,             amended (‘‘FECA’’). First, the
                                             allotment percentages are expected to                   will tend to effectuate the declared                  Commission is revising its rules
                                             achieve the goals of market and price                   policy of the Act.                                    regarding the permissible grounds for
                                             stability.                                                                                                    challenging a proposed civil money
                                                As previously stated, annual salable                 List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985                    penalty by clarifying the scope of the
                                             quantities and allotment percentages                      Marketing agreements, Oils and fats,                defense based on factual errors. Second,
                                             have been issued for both classes of                    Reporting and recordkeeping                           the Commission is incorporating a
                                             spearmint oil since the order’s                         requirements, Spearmint oil.                          defense for political committees that
                                             inception. Accordingly, this action will                                                                      demonstrate that they used their best
                                                                                                     I For the reasons set forth in the                    efforts to file reports timely. Third, the
                                             not impose any additional reporting or
                                                                                                     preamble, 7 CFR part 985 is amended as                Commission is revising its rules
                                             recordkeeping requirements on either
                                                                                                     follows:                                              regarding its final determinations to
                                             small or large spearmint oil producers
                                             or handlers. As with all Federal                                                                              clarify when the Commission finds that
                                                                                                     PART 985—MARKETING ORDER
                                             marketing order programs, reports and                                                                         no violation has occurred. Lastly, the
                                                                                                     REGULATING THE HANDLING OF
                                             forms are periodically reviewed to                                                                            rules are being amended to explain that
                                                                                                     SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE
                                             reduce information requirements and                                                                           the Commission’s statement of reasons
                                                                                                     FAR WEST
                                             duplication by industry and public                                                                            for its final decision in an AFP matter
                                             sector agencies.                                        I 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR                 usually consists of the reasons set forth
                                                The AMS is committed to complying                    part 985 continues to read as follows:                by the Commission’s reviewing officer
                                             with the E-Government Act, to promote                                                                         as adopted by the Commission. The
                                                                                                         Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
                                             the use of the Internet and other                                                                             supplementary information that follows
                                             information technologies to provide                     I 2. A new § 985.226 is added to read                 provides further information.
                                             increased opportunities for citizen                     as follows:
                                                                                                                                                           EFFECTIVE DATE:    April 30, 2007.
                                             access to Government information and                      Note: This section will not appear in the
                                                                                                     Code of Federal Regulations.                          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:    Mr.
                                             services, and for other purposes.
                                                                                                                                                           J. Duane Pugh Jr., Acting Assistant
                                                As noted in the initial regulatory
                                                                                                     § 985.226 Salable quantities and allotment            General Counsel, or Ms. Margaret G.
                                             flexibility analysis, USDA has not
                                                                                                     percentages—2007–2008 marketing year.                 Perl, Attorney, 999 E Street, NW.,
                                             identified any relevant Federal rules
                                                                                                        The salable quantity and allotment                 Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650
                                             that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
                                                                                                     percentage for each class of spearmint                or (800) 424–9530.
                                             this final rule.
                                                In addition, the Committee’s meeting                 oil during the marketing year beginning               SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:       Through
                                             was widely publicized throughout the                    on June 1, 2007, shall be as follows:                 the AFP, the Commission may assess a
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES




                                             spearmint oil industry and all interested                  (a) Class 1 (Scotch) oil—a salable                 civil money penalty for a violation of
                                             persons were invited to attend the                      quantity of 886,667 pounds and an                     the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C.
                                             meeting and participate in Committee                    allotment percentage of 45 percent.                   434(a) (such as not filing or filing late)
                                             deliberations on all issues. Like all                      (b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable                 without using the traditional
                                             Committee meetings, the October 4,                      quantity of 1,062,336 pounds and an                   enforcement procedures reserved for
                                             2006, meeting was a public meeting and                  allotment percentage of 48 percent.                   more serious violations under 2 U.S.C.


                                        VerDate Aug<31>2005   14:22 Mar 28, 2007   Jkt 211001   PO 00000   Frm 00014   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM   29MRR1
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations                                                    14663

                                             437g. See 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(4)(C).1                      committee, any report or any records of                the other comment was not relevant to
                                             Congress intended the Commission to                     such committee shall be considered in                  this rulemaking.
                                             process these straightforward violations                compliance with [FECA].’’ 2 U.S.C.                        After consideration of the relevant
                                             through a ‘‘simplified procedure’’ that                 432(i).3 The Lovely court concluded that               comment, the Commission has decided
                                             would ease the enforcement burden on                    the plain language of FECA requires the                to revise its rules governing the AFP in
                                             the Commission. See H.R. Rep. No. 106–                  Commission to consider the ‘‘best                      four ways, as described below: (1)
                                             295, at 11–12 (1999). The rules                         efforts’’ defense in the AFP, and that the             Clarifying the scope of the ‘‘factual
                                             governing the AFP create a streamlined                  record in the Lovely case did not                      errors’’ defense; (2) incorporating a
                                             procedure that balances the                             establish whether the Commission had                   ‘‘best efforts’’ defense for challenges to
                                             respondent’s rights to notice and                       considered that defense. See Lovely, 307               RTB findings; (3) clarifying when the
                                             opportunity to be heard with the need                                                                          Commission may find that no violation
                                                                                                     F. Supp. 2d at 300–01. The court
                                             to operate the AFP in an expeditious                                                                           has occurred in an AFP matter; and (4)
                                                                                                     remanded the case to the Commission
                                             manner without undue administrative                                                                            explaining the procedure for issuing
                                                                                                     for further proceedings. See id. at 301.
                                             burden. See Explanation and                                                                                    Commission statements of reasons for
                                                                                                     On remand, the Commission                              AFP final determinations. These
                                             Justification for Final Rule on
                                                                                                     determined that the political committee                changes address the concerns raised by
                                             Administrative Fines, 65 FR 31787,
                                                                                                     had failed to show it used best efforts to             the Lovely court and provide greater
                                             31788 (May 19, 2000) (‘‘Admin Fines
                                                                                                     file timely and confirmed the earlier                  clarity regarding permissible grounds
                                             E&J’’).2
                                                When the Commission finds reason to                  imposition of the civil money penalty.                 for challenging an RTB finding. The
                                             believe (‘‘RTB’’) that a political                      See Statement of Reasons in                            revisions are substantially similar to
                                             committee and its treasurer                             Administrative Fines Case 549 (Oct. 4,                 those proposed in the NPRM.
                                             (‘‘respondents’’) violated the reporting                2005), available at http://www.fec.gov/                   Under the Administrative Procedure
                                             requirements, the respondents may                       law/law_rulemakings.shtml under the                    Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), and the
                                             challenge the finding and the proposed                  heading ‘‘Best Efforts in Administrative               Congressional Review of Agency
                                             civil money penalty only for certain                    Fines Challenges.’’                                    Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1),
                                             specified reasons. See revised 11 CFR                      Although the Lovely decision did not                agencies must submit final rules to the
                                             111.35. The Commission’s reviewing                      directly challenge the AFP rules, and                  Speaker of the House of Representatives
                                             officer considers the challenge and                     did not affect the validity of 11 CFR                  and the President of the Senate and
                                             forwards a recommendation to the                        111.35 or the Commission’s                             publish them in the Federal Register at
                                             Commission. See 11 CFR 111.36(e).                       consideration of any other AFP matters,                least 30 calendar days before they take
                                             After considering the challenge, the                    the Commission opted to open a                         effect. The final rules that follow were
                                             reviewing officer’s recommendation,                     rulemaking by publishing a Notice of                   transmitted to Congress on March 23,
                                             and any subsequent comments from the                                                                           2007.
                                                                                                     Proposed Rulemaking on December 8,
                                             respondent regarding the                                2006, to seek public comment on                        Explanation And Justification
                                             recommendation, the Commission                          proposed revisions to the AFP based on
                                             makes a final determination. See revised                                                                       I. Revised 11 CFR 111.35—Respondent
                                                                                                     the court’s concerns. See Notice of                    Challenges to Reason To Believe
                                             11 CFR 111.37. The Commission                           Proposed Rulemaking for Best Efforts in                Finding or Proposed Civil Money
                                             assesses civil money penalties based on                 Administrative Fines Challenges, 71 FR                 Penalty
                                             published penalty schedules set forth in                71093 (Dec. 8, 2006) (‘‘NPRM’’). The
                                             11 CFR 111.43. Respondents may                                                                                    Revised section 111.35 sets forth the
                                                                                                     Commission received two comments,
                                             challenge the Commission’s final                                                                               requirements for AFP respondents’
                                                                                                     which are available at http://
                                             determination in U.S. District Court. See                                                                      challenges to RTB findings and
                                                                                                     www.fec.gov/law/
                                             2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(4)(C)(iii); 11 CFR                                                                            proposed civil money penalties. Revised
                                                                                                     law_rulemakings.shtml under the                        section 111.35(a) is clarified so that it
                                             111.38.                                                 heading ‘‘Best Efforts in Administrative
                                                In Lovely v. FEC, 307 F. Supp. 2d 294                                                                       applies only to respondents that seek to
                                                                                                     Fines Challenges.’’4 One comment made                  challenge an RTB finding or proposed
                                             (D. Mass. 2004), a political committee
                                                                                                     several recommendations as to how the                  civil money penalty.5 The Commission
                                             challenged a civil money penalty
                                             assessed by the Commission through the                  Commission could further clarify the                   is reorganizing and clarifying section
                                             AFP. The political committee argued                     ‘‘best efforts’’ defense by incorporating              111.35 so that respondents may easily
                                             that it had used its best efforts to file the           the business management concept of                     identify the basis for challenges in the
                                             report in question and that this                        ‘‘best practices’’ regarding corporate                 AFP. See revised 11 CFR 111.35(b).
                                             constituted a valid and complete                        operation, financial controls, risk
                                                                                                     prevention and risk assessment, while                  A. Revised 11 CFR 111.35(b)(1)—
                                             defense under FECA’s ‘‘best efforts’’                                                                          Changes to the ‘‘Factual Errors’’ Defense
                                             provision in 2 U.S.C. 432(i). See Lovely,
                                             307 F. Supp. 2d at 299. Section 432(i)                     3 The Commission had long interpreted the ‘‘best      The NPRM sought comment on
                                             provides that ‘‘[w]hen the treasurer of a
                                                                                                     efforts’’ safe harbor to be limited to political       proposed clarifications to the ‘‘factual
                                                                                                     committees’ obligation to report certain substantive   errors’’ defense and asked whether the
                                             political committee shows that best                     information that may be beyond the control of the
                                             efforts have been used to obtain,                       committees to obtain. See 11 CFR 104.7 (defining
                                                                                                                                                            regulation should include examples of
                                             maintain, and submit the information                    ‘‘best efforts’’ for purposes of obtaining and         the types of factual errors that would
                                             required by this Act for the political
                                                                                                     submitting contributor information). The               suffice as grounds for challenging an
                                                                                                     Commission is currently considering in a separate      RTB finding. See NPRM, 71 FR at 71094.
                                                                                                     proceeding whether to revise its application of this
                                                1 The AFP applies to violations of the reporting     provision in enforcement matters outside the scope
                                                                                                                                                            The comment did not address this issue.
                                             requirements by political committees and their          of the AFP. See Proposed Statement of Policy           The Commission has decided to revise
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES




                                             treasurers. See 11 CFR 111.30.                          Regarding Treasurer’s Best Efforts to Obtain,
                                                2 The AFP is set to expire on December 31, 2008.     Maintain, and Submit Information as Required by          5 The revisions to section 111.35(a) did not alter

                                             See Pub. L. No. 109–115, sec. 721, 119 Stat. 2396,      the Federal Election Campaign Act, 71 FR 71084         the basic timing requirement that a respondent
                                             2493–94 (2005); Final Rule on Extension of              (Dec. 8, 2006). The Commission anticipates issuing     must file a challenge with the Commission within
                                             Administrative Fines Program, 70 FR 75717 (Dec.         a final policy statement this year.                    forty (40) days of when the Commission issues its
                                             21, 2005) (extending the sunset date in 11 CFR             4 The Internal Revenue Service did not comment      reason to believe finding. See revised 111.35(a);
                                             111.30 to Dec. 31, 2008).                               on the NPRM.                                           Admin Fines E&J, 65 FR at 31789.



                                        VerDate Aug<31>2005   14:22 Mar 28, 2007   Jkt 211001   PO 00000   Frm 00015   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM    29MRR1
                                             14664             Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

                                             the rule regarding the ‘‘factual errors’’               defense. The Commission has decided                   respondents to understand and
                                             defense as proposed in the NPRM,                        to adopt the Lovely court’s                           document in their written responses.
                                             except for stylistic changes. The revised               interpretation of 2 U.S.C. 432(i) and to              The final rule differs slightly from the
                                             rule states that the facts alleged to be in             incorporate a ‘‘best efforts’’ defense into           proposed rule, which would have stated
                                             error must be facts upon which the                      the AFP. It appears in revised 11 CFR                 that the respondent must be prevented
                                             Commission relied in its RTB finding.                   111.35(b)(3) and is the same as the                   from filing in a timely manner by
                                             See revised 11 CFR 111.35(b)(1). Thus,                  proposed rule, except for the changes                 ‘‘unforeseen’’ circumstances. The
                                             a respondent may not challenge an RTB                   noted below. The ‘‘best efforts’’ defense             Commission is making this change to
                                             finding based on factual errors that are                in the revised rule completely replaces               emphasize that the ‘‘best efforts’’
                                             irrelevant to the Commission’s actual                   the prior ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’             defense is an objective test, which uses
                                             RTB finding, such as errors in the RTB                  defense because the two defenses are                  a reasonable person standard and does
                                             finding regarding individual names or                   largely coextensive. The Commission                   not depend upon the committee’s
                                             titles of committee staff.                              reiterates its policy determination, as
                                                The revised rule provides two                                                                              treasurer or staff’s subjective ability to
                                                                                                     stated in the initial rulemaking for the
                                             examples of the type of factual errors                                                                        foresee a particular circumstance. The
                                                                                                     AFP, that respondents’ defenses in the
                                             that would properly support a                           AFP should be limited because the                     examples included in the rule in 11 CFR
                                             challenge: the respondent was not                       complete and timely disclosure of the                 111.35(c) and (d), described below,
                                             required to file the report in question,                political committee’s financial activity              illustrate how this defense operates as
                                             and the respondent did in fact timely                   is a ‘‘cornerstone of campaign finance                an objective test.
                                             file as described in 11 CFR 100.19. See                 law.’’ See Admin Fines E&J, 65 FR at                     Under the first part of the defense, the
                                             revised 11 CFR 111.35(b)(1). For                        31789.                                                respondent bears the burden of showing
                                             example, a political committee that is                     The Lovely court recognized that the               that the reasonably unforeseen
                                             not subject to electronic filing                        Commission could ‘‘refine by regulation               circumstances in fact prevented the
                                             requirements could challenge an RTB                     what best efforts means in the context                timely and proper filing of the required
                                             finding and proposed civil money                        of submitting a report.’’ Lovely, 307 F.              report. The NPRM requested public
                                             penalty under section 111.35(b)(1) by                   Supp. 2d at 300. In exercising its                    comment regarding whether the
                                             showing that the paper copy was filed                   authority to interpret how to incorporate             Commission should apply a ‘‘but for’’ or
                                             on time and the Commission relied on                    a ‘‘best efforts’’ defense into the AFP               ‘‘contributing factor’’ test for
                                             the factual error that the committee was                rules, the Commission is mindful of the               determining whether a respondent was
                                             required instead to file electronically.                statutory terms chosen by Congress. As
                                                                                                                                                           prevented from timely filing under the
                                             See 11 CFR 104.18(a). As referenced in                  also explained by the Commission in its
                                                                                                                                                           rule. See NPRM, 71 FR at 71095. The
                                             the rule’s second example, Commission                   statement of reasons in the Lovely case
                                             rules currently state that certain reports              after remand, section 432(i) creates a                comment did not address this issue. The
                                             are ‘‘timely filed’’ if they are deposited              safe harbor for treasurers who                        Commission has decided that this rule
                                             as registered or certified mail with the                demonstrate that best efforts have been               requires a strict causal relationship
                                             U.S. Post Office, as Priority Mail or                   used to submit reports required by                    between the circumstances described in
                                             Express Mail through the U.S. Post                      FECA. ‘‘Best’’ is an adjective of the                 the challenge (such as a natural disaster)
                                             Office, or with an overnight delivery                   superlative degree. Therefore, best                   and the respondent’s inability to file the
                                             service to be delivered the next business               efforts requires more than ‘‘some’’ or                report timely. It is not sufficient for
                                             day with a postmark no later than 11:59                 ‘‘good’’ efforts. Section 432(i)’s use of             reasonably unforeseen circumstances to
                                             p.m. EST on the filing date. See 11 CFR                 the phrase ‘‘best efforts,’’ instead of a             make it merely more difficult than usual
                                             100.19(b). Thus, a respondent who is                    ‘‘good faith’’ standard, means that an                for the respondent to file on time. The
                                             not required to file electronically could               AFP respondent cannot rely upon the                   circumstance must cause the respondent
                                             challenge an RTB finding based on                       state of mind of the committee’s                      to be unable to file in a timely and
                                             evidence that it deposited the report in                treasurer or staff to claim this defense.6            proper manner, despite the respondent
                                             the proper manner pursuant to section                   Instead, the Commission’s revised rule                attempting to use all available methods
                                             100.19(b) on the filing date, even if the               at 11 CFR 111.35(b)(3), which sets forth              of filing. ‘‘Best efforts’’ is a high
                                             Commission did not receive the report                   the ‘‘best efforts’’ defense, focuses on              standard set by FECA, and the
                                             because of a delivery failure by the U.S.               actions taken by the respondent                       Commission reminds respondents that
                                             Post Office or other delivery service.                  committee or treasurer to comply with                 there are multiple ways for a committee
                                             The Commission emphasizes that the                      reporting deadlines.                                  to file required reports properly and
                                             revisions to section 111.35(b)(1) do not                   The ‘‘best efforts’’ defense is                    timely. See, e.g., 11 CFR 100.19(b)
                                             create any new ‘‘factual errors’’                       described in the revised rule as a two-               (political committees not required to file
                                             defenses, but simply recognize the types                part test. The AFP respondent must                    electronically may file on paper by hand
                                             of errors that the Commission has                       demonstrate that: (1) The respondent                  delivery, first class, registered, certified,
                                             accepted previously as a defense in the                 was prevented from filing in a timely                 Priority or Express U.S. Mail, or
                                             AFP.                                                    manner by ‘‘reasonably unforeseen                     overnight delivery service); 11 CFR
                                             B. Revised 11 CFR 111.35(b)(3)—‘‘Best                   circumstances that were beyond the                    104.18 (mandatory electronic filings
                                             Efforts’’ Defense                                       control’’ of the respondent; and (2) the              accepted through the Commission’s
                                                                                                     respondent filed the report in question               filing system via internet, modem, or by
                                               The NPRM also sought comment on                       no later than 24 hours after the end of
                                             whether to replace the ‘‘extraordinary                                                                        submission of diskette or CD). If the
                                                                                                     the reasonably unforeseen                             respondent is prevented from using one
                                             circumstances’’ defense in the prior rule               circumstances preventing the timely
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES




                                             with a ‘‘best efforts’’ defense for                                                                           method of filing by a problem (such as
                                                                                                     filing. See revised 11 CFR 111.35(b)(3).
                                             challenging an RTB finding based upon                                                                         a technical problem with the
                                                                                                     The Commission believes this test is
                                             2 U.S.C. 432(i). See NPRM, 71 FR at                                                                           Commission’s modems), the respondent
                                                                                                     straightforward and should be easy for
                                             71094–95 and former 11 CFR                                                                                    cannot claim the ‘‘best efforts’’ defense
                                             111.35(b)(1)(iii). The comment generally                  6 See Statement of Reasons in Administrative
                                                                                                                                                           if it did not attempt to use other
                                             supported the idea of a ‘‘best efforts’’                Fines Case 549 (Oct. 4, 2005).                        available methods to file timely (such as


                                        VerDate Aug<31>2005   14:22 Mar 28, 2007   Jkt 211001   PO 00000   Frm 00016   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM   29MRR1
                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations                                                 14665

                                             submission on a diskette or CD).7                       committees and treasurers. The revised                reasonably unforeseen circumstance
                                             Therefore, to satisfy the ‘‘best efforts’’              rule provides such illustrations. The                 beyond the respondent’s control.
                                             defense, a respondent must demonstrate                  examples of defenses in the revised rule                 The second example in revised
                                             that it attempted to use all available                  are the same as proposed in the NPRM,                 section 111.35(c)(2) is a ‘‘widespread
                                             methods to file, but that timely filing by              except as noted otherwise below. Both                 disruption of information transmissions
                                             each method was prevented by the                        sets of examples in revised section                   over the Internet not caused by any
                                             reasonably unforeseen circumstances                     111.35(c) and (d) are non-exhaustive                  failure of the Commission’s or
                                             beyond the control of the respondent.                   lists and should not be read to override              respondent’s computer systems or
                                                The direct causal link between the                   the general requirements of the defense               Internet service provider.’’ This example
                                             reasonably unforeseen circumstances                     in revised section 111.35(b)(3) as                    covers circumstances in which
                                             and the ability of the respondent to file               discussed above.                                      technological problems at a third-party
                                             the report also underlies the second part                                                                     hub or information transfer location,
                                             of the test for the ‘‘best efforts’’ defense.           1. Revised 11 CFR 111.35(c)—                          rather than the Commission’s or
                                             A respondent must show that the report                  Reasonably Unforeseen Circumstances                   respondent’s computer systems, caused
                                             was properly filed no later than 24                     Beyond Respondents’ Control                           widespread communication failures on
                                             hours after the resolution of the                                                                             the Internet that left the respondent
                                             circumstances preventing the timely                        Revised section 111.35(c) provides                 unable to send, or the Commission
                                             filing. When the situation (such as a                   three examples of circumstances that                  unable to receive, an electronically filed
                                             problem with Commission computers)                      the Commission will consider                          report. This failure to transmit
                                             is resolved, the Act’s high standard of                 ‘‘reasonably unforeseen and beyond the                information must occur irrespective of
                                             ‘‘best efforts’’ requires that the                      control’’ of the respondent under a ‘‘best            any failures of the Commission’s or
                                             respondent file the report within a                     efforts’’ defense. The first example is               respondent’s computer systems or
                                             reasonably short period of time. The                    that a failure of Commission computers                Internet service providers. If a
                                             NPRM requested public comment                           or Commission-provided software,                      respondent demonstrates such a
                                             regarding whether the 24-hour period in                 despite the respondent seeking                        widespread disruption of information
                                             the proposed rule was appropriate for                   technical assistance, caused the                      transmissions occurred, the Commission
                                             the ‘‘best efforts’’ defense. See NPRM, 71              respondent’s untimely electronic filing.              will consider it ‘‘reasonably unforeseen
                                             FR at 71095. The comment did not                        See revised 11 CFR 111.35(c)(1). This                 circumstances that were beyond the
                                             address this issue. The Commission has                  example is similar to the example in the              control’’ of the respondent. As with all
                                             determined that a 24-hour period best                   prior rules, in which a failure of                    the examples in revised section
                                             serves the interest in disclosure of the                Commission computers satisfied the                    111.35(c)(2), the respondent bears the
                                             information as soon as practicable after                ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ defense.              burden of showing that these reasonably
                                             the circumstances preventing the timely                 See former 11 CFR 111.35(b)(4)(iv);                   unforeseen circumstances in fact
                                             disclosure are resolved.                                Admin Fines E&J, 65 FR at 31790 (‘‘Any                prevented the respondent from filing
                                                                                                     failure of the Commission’s system that               timely, despite attempts to file by any
                                             C. Examples of Circumstances Under                      prevents committees from filing their
                                             the ‘‘Best Efforts’’ Defense                                                                                  available alternative methods permitted
                                                                                                     reports when due would be recognized                  under Commission regulations.9 This
                                                To provide further guidance to                       as an extraordinary circumstance                      example has been refined from the
                                             respondents regarding the scope of the                  beyond the respondents’ control.’’).8                 proposed rule to clarify the types of
                                             ‘‘best efforts’’ defense, the revised rule              The revised rule differs from the                     transmission failures contemplated.
                                             includes examples of circumstances that                 proposed rule by including the                           The final example in the rule states
                                             will be considered ‘‘reasonably                         respondent’s seeking technical                        that a ‘‘[s]evere weather or other
                                             unforeseen and beyond the control of                    assistance as part of the example.                    disaster-related incident’’ is a
                                             the respondent,’’ and examples of                       Consistent with the prior defense based               reasonably unforeseen circumstance
                                             circumstances that will not be                          on Commission computer failures, the                  beyond the control of the respondent.
                                             considered ‘‘reasonably unforeseen and                  revised example clarifies that political              See revised 11 CFR 111.35(c)(3). Under
                                             beyond the control of the respondent.’’                 committees must use all Commission                    the prior rule, the Commission deemed
                                             See revised 11 CFR 111.35(c) and (d).                   resources available to aid with                       certain weather conditions (lasting more
                                             The comment argued that the rule                        electronic filing, such as technical                  than 48 hours) met the ‘‘extraordinary
                                             should not be limited to examples of                    support manuals and personnel, before                 circumstances’’ test, explaining that
                                             defenses that would be unacceptable                     a respondent will be considered                       ‘‘natural disasters where a committee’s
                                             under the new ‘‘best efforts’’ defense,                 ‘‘prevented’’ from timely filing by                   office is located in the disaster area and
                                             but should also include examples of                     Commission computer or software                       the committee cannot timely file a
                                             defenses that would meet the new                        failures. Thus, any failure of                        report because of lack of electricity or
                                             defense to provide guidance to                          Commission computers, servers, filing                 flooding or destruction of committee
                                                                                                     system or Commission-provided                         records’’ would satisfy the defense. See
                                                7 The Commission’s guidance and instructions to
                                                                                                     software of sufficient severity that it               previous 11 CFR 111.35(b)(1)(iii);
                                             political committees required to file electronically
                                             makes clear that if a report is successfully uploaded   results in a respondent being unable to               Admin Fines E&J, 65 FR at 31790. The
                                             and accepted by the Commission, a confirmation          file, despite the respondent seeking                  revised rule permits such severe
                                             receipt (including a validation number) is              assistance from the Commission’s                      weather-related events occurring at the
                                             immediately sent to the committee via e-mail, fax       technical support personnel, is a
                                             or both. If a committee does not receive such a                                                               respondent’s or Commission’s location
                                             receipt, the committee should not assume the filing
                                             was received and should contact the Commission’s          8 In order to satisfy the prior ‘‘extraordinary       9 The Commission’s electronic filing manuals
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES




                                             technical support personnel. See, e.g., ‘‘Frequently    circumstances’’ defense, the failure of Commission    detail step-by-step instructions for the various
                                             Asked Questions About Electronic Filing,’’              computers had to last at least 48 hours. See former   methods of acceptable electronic filing via the
                                             available at http://www.fec.gov/support/                11 CFR 111.35(b)(1)(iii). The new ‘‘best efforts’’    Internet, modem, or by saving the report to a
                                             faq_filing.shtml (last visited Mar. 16, 2007);          defense does not contain any minimum time period      diskette or CD. See, e.g., ‘‘FECFile User Manual for
                                             ‘‘Common Electronic Filing Mistakes,’’ available at     for the ‘‘reasonably unforeseen circumstances that    Candidate Committees,’’ available at http://
                                             http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/mistakes.shtml (last         were beyond the control’’ of the respondent. See      www.fec.gov/elecfil/authorized_manual/
                                             visited Mar. 16, 2007).                                 revised 11 CFR 111.35(b)(3).                          manual.shtml (last visited Mar. 16, 2007).



                                        VerDate Aug<31>2005   14:22 Mar 28, 2007   Jkt 211001   PO 00000   Frm 00017   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM   29MRR1
                                             14666             Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

                                             to form the basis for a ‘‘best efforts’’                available so that their ability to file               error, miscalculation of civil money
                                             defense. The Commission is not                          reports on time will not be                           penalty, and best efforts) are the only
                                             defining with specificity the level of                  compromised due to the unavailability                 permissible grounds for challenging the
                                             severity for weather or other disaster-                 or inexperience of the treasurer or other             Commission’s RTB finding or proposed
                                             related incidents in revised section                    staff. See Final Rules on Administrative              civil money penalty, and a respondent’s
                                             111.35(c)(3) because a respondent’s                     Fines, 68 FR 12572, 12573 (Mar. 17,                   written response must be based on one
                                             challenge must show that the weather or                 2003) (adding staff ‘‘inexperience’’ and              of these grounds to be considered by the
                                             disaster-related incident in fact                       ‘‘unavailability’’ as examples of                     reviewing officer and the Commission.
                                             prevented the respondent from filing                    circumstances that will not be                        Respondents bear the burden of
                                             timely. Given that the effects upon the                 considered ‘‘extraordinary’’ under                    showing that a permissible defense is
                                             respondent of each weather or disaster-                 former 11 CFR 111.35(b)(4)(iii)).                     satisfied.11
                                             related incident will vary, the                            The Commission’s implementation of
                                             Commission will evaluate the particular                 the ‘‘best efforts’’ defense set forth in             II. Revised 11 CFR 111.37—
                                             facts contained in individual challenges,               this revised rule serves as a proxy for               Commission Review of Respondent’s
                                             instead of mandating such details in a                  the factual investigation of a                        Challenge and Reviewing Officer’s
                                             rule of general application.                            respondent’s internal practices                       Recommendation
                                                2. Revised 11 CFR 111.35(d)—                         regarding filing of reports that would                A. Revised 11 CFR 111.37(b)—
                                             Circumstances That Are Not Reasonably                   ordinarily be necessary to determine                  Commission Finding That No Violation
                                             Unforeseen or Beyond Respondents’                       whether such practices were sufficient                Has Occurred
                                             Control                                                 to constitute best efforts. The comment
                                                Revised section 111.35(d) includes a                 argued that the Commission should                        Revised section 111.37 sets forth
                                             non-exhaustive list of circumstances                    conduct a full examination of the                     procedures regarding the Commission’s
                                             that are not considered ‘‘reasonably                    business models and management                        final determination for AFP matters
                                             unforeseen and beyond the control’’ of                  procedures of each committee to                       upon receipt of the respondent’s
                                             the respondent, and will not support a                  determine whether the committee                       challenge and the reviewing officer’s
                                             ‘‘best efforts’’ finding. See revised 11                implemented proper back-up systems                    recommendation. See revised 11 CFR
                                             CFR 111.35(d)(1) through (6). All but                   and other measures reflecting                         111.37(a) through (d). The NPRM sought
                                             two of these examples are drawn from                    management ‘‘best practices’’ in the                  comment on proposed revisions to
                                             the list of events that did not constitute              relevant industry to reduce the risk of a             section 111.37(b) regarding Commission
                                             ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ under                   late filing. However, such an                         determinations that no violation has
                                             the Commission’s prior rule:                            investigation would be resource-                      occurred where the RTB finding is
                                             Negligence; delays caused by committee                  intensive for the Commission,                         based on a factual error, and where the
                                             vendors or contractors; illness,                        burdensome for the respondent, and                    respondent demonstrated it used best
                                             inexperience or unavailability                          inappropriate in the AFP, which is a                  efforts to file timely. See NPRM, 71 FR
                                             (including death) of the treasurer or                   streamlined procedure created by                      at 71095. The comment did not address
                                             other staff; and committee computer,                    Congress to alleviate the Commission’s                these rules. The Commission is revising
                                             software or Internet service provider                   enforcement burden for routine and                    section 111.37(b) to clarify that the
                                             failures. Compare revised 11 CFR                        minor filing violations. Absent                       existence of factual errors or a finding
                                             111.35(d)(1) through (4) with former 11                 reasonably unforeseen circumstances                   of best efforts are complete defenses.
                                             CFR 111.35(b)(4). One example                           that were beyond the control of the                   Thus, if one of these defenses is
                                             concerns Internet service provider                      respondent, the Commission sees no                    satisfied, the Commission will conclude
                                             failures. See revised 11 CFR                            reason why political committees cannot                that no violation of FECA has occurred.
                                             111.35(d)(4). The proposed rule                         file reports on time.10 Thus, the                     Please note that the defense based on an
                                             described this example as failures of                   Commission’s implementation of the                    incorrect basis for calculating the civil
                                             committee computers or software. The                    ‘‘best efforts’’ defense appropriately                money penalty (section 111.35(b)(2)) is
                                             final rule also includes Internet service               incorporates a statutory ‘‘best efforts’’             a defense only as to the amount of the
                                             provider failures. Because many Internet                standard, while taking into account the               civil money penalty and does not serve
                                             service providers are available, a failure              unique streamlined nature of the AFP.                 as a basis for a finding of no violation
                                             limited to one provider is not a defense                                                                      under the AFP.
                                             for late filing or not filing. The revised              D. Revised 11 CFR 111.35(e)—Factual
                                                                                                     Basis for Challenge                                   B. Revised 11 CFR 111.37(d)—
                                             rule adds two examples to this list based
                                                                                                                                                           Commission Statement of Reasons in
                                             upon the Commission’s experience with                      The Commission is adding paragraph                 AFP Final Determinations
                                             respondent challenges in the AFP: A                     (e) to 11 CFR 111.35 to require that the
                                             failure to know filing dates and a failure              respondent’s written response must                      The NPRM sought comment on
                                             to use Commission software properly.                    detail the factual basis supporting its               proposed revisions to section 111.37(d)
                                             See revised 11 CFR 111.35(d)(5) and (6).                challenge. Furthermore, respondents                   to make clear that the reasons for the
                                                Under the revised rule, a respondent’s               must provide supporting documentation                 reviewing officer’s recommendation
                                             challenge will not succeed if its ‘‘best                for their challenges. The comment did                 regarding the challenge, unless modified
                                             efforts’’ defense is based on any of these              not address this provision, which is                  or rejected by the Commission, will
                                             circumstances as the cause of the failure               identical to the proposed rule.                       serve as the Commission’s statement of
                                             to file timely. The Commission notes                       The three defenses specified in                    reasons regarding the final
                                             that the examples in revised section                    sections 111.35(b)(1) through (3) (factual            determination in the AFP matter.12 See
                                             111.35(d) are not exhaustive, but are                                                                         NPRM, 71 FR at 71095. This proposed
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES




                                             illustrative of the types of situations that              10 See Admin Fines E&J, 65 FR at 31790 (stating

                                             are not reasonably unforeseen and                       that political committees should be aware of their      11 The Commission considers affidavits more

                                             beyond the respondent’s control. The                    reporting duties and noting that the Commission       persuasive evidence than unsworn statements
                                                                                                     makes efforts to send reminders of deadlines and      submitted in support of the respondent’s challenge.
                                             Commission strongly encourages all                      political committees have ample time from the end       12 These revisions do not affect any statements of
                                             political committees to name assistant                  of the reporting period to the filing deadline to     reasons the Commissioners may issue in
                                             treasurers and have additional staff                    prepare and file reports).                            enforcement matters under review.



                                        VerDate Aug<31>2005   14:22 Mar 28, 2007   Jkt 211001   PO 00000   Frm 00018   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM   29MRR1
                                                               Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations                                             14667

                                             revision addresses the Lovely court’s                   in its field. 5 U.S.C. 601(4). The rules              List of Subjects in 11 CFR Part 111
                                             concerns that it was unclear what                       apply to all types of political                         Administrative practice and
                                             constituted the statement of reasons for                committees and their treasurers. State                procedures, Elections, Law enforcement.
                                             the Commission’s final determination in                 political party committees are not
                                             that matter. The comment did not                        independently owned and operated                      I For the reasons set out in the
                                             address this issue.                                     because they are not financed and                     preamble, the Federal Election
                                                The Commission is revising section                   controlled by a small identifiable group              Commission is amending subchapter A
                                             111.37(d) to indicate that, unless                      of individuals, and they are affiliated               of chapter I of Title 11 of the Code of
                                             otherwise indicated by the Commission,                  with the larger national political party              Federal Regulations as follows:
                                             the statement of reasons for the                        organizations. In addition, the State
                                             Commission’s final determination in an                                                                        PART 111—COMPLIANCE
                                                                                                     political party committees representing
                                             AFP matter consists of the reasons                                                                            PROCEDURE (2 U.S.C. 437g, 437d(a))
                                                                                                     the Democratic and Republican parties
                                             provided by the reviewing officer for the               have a major controlling influence                    I  1. The authority citation for part 111
                                             recommendation, if approved by the                      within the political arena of their State             is revised to read as follows:
                                             Commission. See Lovely, 307 F. Supp.                    and are thus dominant in their field.
                                             2d at 301 (stating that the Commission’s                                                                        Authority: 2 U.S.C. 432(i), 437g, 437d(a),
                                                                                                     District and local party committees are               438(a)(8); 28 U.S.C. 2461 nt.
                                             ‘‘adoption of a reviewing officer’s                     generally considered affiliated with the
                                             recommendation may suffice in some                      State committees and need not be                      I 2. Section 111.35 is revised to read as
                                             circumstances’’). Statements setting                    considered separately. To the extent that             follows:
                                             forth additional or different reasons may               any State party committees representing
                                             also be issued. The revised rule also                                                                         § 111.35 If the respondent decides to
                                                                                                     minor political parties or any other                  challenge the alleged violation or proposed
                                             recognizes that the Commission may                      political committees might be                         civil money penalty, what should the
                                             modify or reject the reviewing officer’s                considered ‘‘small organizations,’’ the               respondent do?
                                             recommendation in whole or in part.                     number that would be affected by this
                                             See 11 CFR 111.37(d). In such cases, the                                                                         (a) To challenge a reason to believe
                                                                                                     rule is not substantial.                              finding or proposed civil money
                                             Commission will indicate the grounds                       Furthermore, any separate segregated
                                             for its action and it or individual                                                                           penalty, the respondent must submit a
                                                                                                     funds affected by these rules are not-for-            written response to the Commission
                                             Commissioners may issue one or more                     profit political committees that do not
                                             statements of reasons.                                                                                        within forty (40) days of the
                                                                                                     meet the definition of ‘‘small                        Commission’s reason to believe finding.
                                                Former section 111.37(d) provided
                                                                                                     organization’’ because they are financed                 (b) The respondent’s written response
                                             that the Commission could determine
                                                                                                     by a combination of individual                        must assert at least one of the following
                                             that a violation of 2 U.S.C. 434(a) had
                                             occurred, but waive the civil money                     contributions and financial support for               grounds for challenging the reason to
                                             penalty because the respondent                          certain expenses from corporations,                   believe finding or proposed civil money
                                             demonstrated the existence of                           labor organizations, membership                       penalty:
                                             ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ under                   organizations, or trade associations, and                (1) The Commission’s reason to
                                             former section 111.35(b)(1)(iii). See                   therefore are not independently owned                 believe finding is based on a factual
                                             former 11 CFR 111.37(d). As discussed                   and operated. Most of the other political             error including, but not limited to, the
                                             above, the Commission is removing the                   committees affected by these rules are                committee was not required to file the
                                             ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ defense                 not-for-profit committees that do not                 report, or the committee timely filed the
                                             and replacing it with a ‘‘best efforts’’                meet the definition of ‘‘small                        report in accordance with 11 CFR
                                             defense in revised section 111.35(b)(3).                organization.’’ Most political                        100.19;
                                             Under 2 U.S.C. 432(i), if the                           committees are not independently                         (2) The Commission improperly
                                             Commission determines that the                          owned and operated because they are                   calculated the civil money penalty; or
                                             treasurer used best efforts in compliance               not financed by a small identifiable                     (3) The respondent used best efforts to
                                             with this rule, there is no violation of                group of individuals. Most political                  file in a timely manner in that:
                                             FECA and the Commission will so                         committees rely on contributions from a                  (i) The respondent was prevented
                                             notify the respondent pursuant to                       large number of individuals to fund the               from filing in a timely manner by
                                             revised section 111.37(b). See revised 11               committees’ operations and activities.                reasonably unforeseen circumstances
                                             CFR 111.37(b). Therefore, the                              The final rules also do not impose any             that were beyond the control of the
                                             Commission need not retain the former                   additional restrictions or increase the               respondent; and
                                             section 111.37(d).                                      costs of compliance for respondents                      (ii) The respondent filed no later than
                                                                                                     within the AFP. Instead, the final rules              24 hours after the end of these
                                             Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5                provide additional defenses available to              circumstances.
                                             U.S.C. 605(b) (Regulatory Flexibility                   political committees and their                           (c) Circumstances that will be
                                             Act)                                                    treasurers, thereby potentially                       considered reasonably unforeseen and
                                                The Commission certifies that the                    increasing the number of situations in                beyond the control of respondent
                                             attached final rules will not have a                    which the Commission assesses no civil                include, but are not limited to:
                                             significant economic impact on a                        money penalty. Moreover, these rules                     (1) A failure of Commission
                                             substantial number of small entities.                   apply only in the AFP, where penalties                computers or Commission-provided
                                             The basis for this certification is that                are proportionate to the amount of a                  software despite the respondent seeking
                                             any individuals and not-for-profit                      political committee’s financial activity.             technical assistance from Commission
                                             entities affected by these rules are not                Any political committee meeting the                   personnel and resources;
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES




                                             ‘‘small entities’’ under 5 U.S.C. 601(6).               definition of ‘‘small entity’’ would be                  (2) A widespread disruption of
                                             The definition of ‘‘small entity’’ does                 subject to lower fines than larger                    information transmissions over the
                                             not include individuals, and classifies a               committees with more financial activity.              Internet not caused by any failure of the
                                             not-for-profit enterprise as a ‘‘small                  Therefore, the final rules will not have              Commission’s or respondent’s computer
                                             organization’’ if it is independently                   a significant economic impact on a                    systems or Internet service provider;
                                             owned and operated and not dominant                     substantial number of small entities.                 and


                                        VerDate Aug<31>2005   14:22 Mar 28, 2007   Jkt 211001   PO 00000   Frm 00019   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM   29MRR1
                                             14668             Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

                                                (3) Severe weather or other disaster-                DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                          Procedural Matters
                                             related incident.
                                                (d) Circumstances that will not be                   Federal Aviation Administration                         In general, under the Administrative
                                             considered reasonably unforeseen and                                                                          Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553,
                                             beyond the control of respondent                        14 CFR Part 13                                        agencies must publish regulations for
                                             include, but are not limited to:                                                                              public comment and give the public at
                                                                                                     [Docket No. FAA–2006–26477]
                                                (1) Negligence;                                                                                            least 30 days notice before adopting
                                                (2) Delays caused by committee                       FAA Civil Penalty Adjudication Web                    regulations. There is an exception to
                                             vendors or contractors;                                 Site                                                  these requirements if the agency for
                                                (3) Illness, inexperience, or                                                                              good cause finds that notice and public
                                             unavailability of the treasurer or other                AGENCY:  Federal Aviation                             comment are impracticable,
                                             staff;                                                  Administration (FAA), DOT.                            unnecessary, or contrary to the public
                                                (4) Committee computer, software or                  ACTION: Final rule; technical                         interest. In this case, the FAA finds that
                                             Internet service provider failures;                     amendment.                                            notice and comment requirements are
                                                (5) A committee’s failure to know
                                                                                                     SUMMARY: The FAA has a Web site that                  unnecessary due to the administrative
                                             filing dates; and
                                                (6) A committee’s failure to use filing              provides access to many documents                     nature of the change. It is in the public
                                             software properly.                                      relating to the agency’s administrative               interest for the Rules of Practice to
                                                (e) Respondent’s written response                    adjudication of civil penalty cases.                  provide the correct address for the civil
                                             must detail the factual basis supporting                Currently, the address provided in the                penalty adjudication Web site as soon as
                                             its challenge and include supporting                    regulations for the civil penalty                     possible.
                                             documentation.                                          adjudication Web site is incorrect. In                List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 13
                                                                                                     this rulemaking, we are amending the
                                             I 3. In section 111.37, paragraphs (b)                  regulations to substitute the correct Web                Administrative practice and
                                             and (d) are revised to read as follows:                 site address.                                         procedure, Air transportation, Aviation
                                             § 111.37 What will the Commission do                    DATES: This rule is effective on March                safety, Hazardous materials
                                             once it receives the respondent’s written               29, 2007.                                             transportation, Investigations, Law
                                             response and the reviewing officer’s                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                      enforcement, Penalties.
                                             recommendation?                                         Sheila Skojec, Office of the Chief
                                             *      *      *   *      *                                                                                    The Amendments
                                                                                                     Counsel, Adjudication Branch, 800
                                                (b) If the Commission, after reviewing               Independence Avenue, SW.,
                                             the reason to believe finding, the                                                                            I Accordingly, the Federal Aviation
                                                                                                     Washington, DC, 20591; telephone 202/                 Administration amends part 13 of the
                                             respondent’s written response, and the                  385–8228.
                                             reviewing officer’s written                                                                                   Federal Aviation Regulations as follows:
                                                                                                     SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                             recommendation, determines by an
                                             affirmative vote of at least four (4) of its            Background                                            PART 13—INVESTIGATIVE AND
                                             members, that no violation has occurred                                                                       ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
                                                                                                        The FAA assesses civil penalties for
                                             (either because the Commission had                      violations of certain provisions of the               I 1. The authority section for part 13
                                             based its reason to believe finding on a                Federal aviation statute and the Federal              continues to read as follows:
                                             factual error or because the respondent                 hazardous materials transportation
                                             used best efforts to file in a timely                   statute. The rules of practice in 14 CFR                 Authority: 18 U.S.C. 6002; 28 U.S.C. 2461
                                             manner) or otherwise terminates its                     13.16 and 14 CFR part 13, subpart G (14               (note); 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 5121–5128, 40113–
                                             proceedings, the Commission shall                       CFR 13.201–13.235) govern these                       40114, 44103–44106, 44702–44703, 44709–
                                             authorize the reviewing officer to notify               proceedings involving the adjudication                44710, 44713, 46101–46111, 46301, 46302
                                             the respondent by letter of its final                   of civil penalties.                                   (for a violation of 49 U.S.C. 46504), 46304–
                                             determination.                                             The agency has a Web site containing               46316, 46318, 46501–46502, 46504–46507,
                                                                                                     documents relating to the agency’s                    47106, 47107, 47111, 47122, 47306, 47531–
                                             *      *      *   *      *
                                                (d) When the Commission makes a                      adjudication of civil penalties. These                47532; 49 CFR 1.47.
                                             final determination under this section,                 documents include decisions and orders
                                                                                                     issued by the Administrator, indexes of               I 2. Amend § 13.210 by revising
                                             the statement of reasons for the
                                             Commission action will, unless                          decisions, contact information for the                paragraphs (e)(2) to read as follows:
                                             otherwise indicated by the Commission,                  Hearing Docket and the administrative                 § 13.210   Filing of documents.
                                             consist of the reasons provided by the                  law judges, the rules of practice, and
                                                                                                     other information.                                    *     *     *     *    *
                                             reviewing officer for the
                                             recommendation, if approved by the                         We recently discovered that the                      (e) * * *
                                             Commission, although statements                         address for the Web site set forth in 14                (1) * * *
                                             setting forth additional or different                   CFR 13.210 is incorrect. As a result, we
                                                                                                     are amending the rules to correct this                  (2) Decisions and orders issued by the
                                             reasons may also be issued. If the
                                                                                                     problem.                                              Administrator in civil penalty cases,
                                             reviewing officer’s recommendation is
                                                                                                                                                           indexes of decisions, contact
                                             modified or not approved, the                           This Rulemaking                                       information for the FAA Hearing Docket
                                             Commission will indicate the grounds
                                             for its action and one or more                            FAA Civil Penalty Adjudication Web                  and the administrative law judges, the
                                             statements of reasons may be issued.                    Site. We are amending section 13.210 to               rules of practice, and other information
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES




                                                                                                     correct the Web site address for the FAA              are available on the FAA civil penalty
                                               Dated: March 22, 2007.                                civil penalty adjudication Web site. The              adjudication Web site at: http://
                                             Robert D. Lenhard,                                      correct address is: http://www.faa.gov/               www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
                                             Chairman, Federal Election Commission.                  about/office_org/headquarters_offices/                headquarters_offices/agc/
                                             [FR Doc. E7–5730 Filed 3–28–07; 8:45 am]                agc/pol_adjudication/AGC400/                          pol_adjudication/AGC400/
                                             BILLING CODE 6715–01–P                                  Civil_Penalty.                                        Civil_Penalty.


                                        VerDate Aug<31>2005   14:22 Mar 28, 2007   Jkt 211001   PO 00000   Frm 00020   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\29MRR1.SGM   29MRR1

								
To top