erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 16233 

To the extent that this 

interpretive rule's approach to a 

''signature'’ could be construed to 

conflict with the new definition of 

''signature'’ in Final Rule on 

Technological Modernization, 89 

FR 196 (January 2, 2024), it is 

superseded. 

https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/

showpdf.htm?docid=424497

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 110 

[Notice 2011–02] 

Interpretive Rule Regarding Electronic 

Contributor Redesignations 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of interpretive rule. 

SUMMARY: Commission regulations 

require that a contributor’s 

redesignation of a contribution for 

another election be in writing and 

signed by the contributor. The 

Commission construes the requirements 

of 11 CFR 110.1(b)(5) and 110.2(b)(5) to 

encompass a certain method of 

electronic redesignation. The method of 

electronic redesignation is described in 

the supplementary information below. 

DATES: This Interpretive Rule is effective 

March 23, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allison T. Steinle, Attorney, Office of 

General Counsel, 999 E Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20463 (202) 694–1000 

or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Commission regulations require that a 

contributor’s redesignation of a 

contribution for another election be in 

writing and be signed by the 

contributor. 11 CFR 110.1(b)(5) and 

110.2(b)(5). The Commission, however, 

recognizes that it should interpret the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 

as amended, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. (‘‘the 

Act’’) and its regulations ‘‘consistent 

with contemporary technological 

innovations * * * where such 

technology would not compromise the 

intent of the Act and regulations.’’ 

Advisory Opinion 1999–09 (Bradley for 

President); see also Advisory Opinions 

2007–30 (Dodd); 2007–17 (DSCC); 

1999–36 (Campaign Advantage); 1999– 

03 (Microsoft PAC); 1995–09 

(NewtWatch). 

During the course of an audit, the 

Commission recently determined that a 

specific redesignation practice provided 

the same degree of assurance of the 

contributor’s identity and the 

contributor’s intent to redesignate the 

contribution as a handwritten signature. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

determined that the practice met the 

requirements of 11 CFR 110.1(b)(5). The 

Commission believes it is important to 

inform the public, including political 

committees and their treasurers, of this 

determination. 

The specific method approved by the 

Commission worked in the following 

manner: The political committee 

informed contributors through postal 

mail, with a follow-up e-mail, that, by 

visiting a Web site printed in the letter 

or by clicking on a link in the e-mail 

message that directed contributors to the 

Web site, they could redesignate their 

contributions to the candidate’s other 

authorized committee if they wished to 

do so. Contributors were also informed 

that if they did not redesignate their 

contributions, they would then receive 

refunds automatically. Contributors who 

visited the Web site were asked to fill 

out an electronic form affirmatively 

authorizing the redesignation and 

verifying their identity by entering their 

personal information, including first 

and last name, address, phone number, 

e-mail address, occupation, and name of

employer. Upon completing the form,

contributors received a ‘‘receipt record,’’

thanking them for their redesignation.

The political committee also retained a

record of each electronic redesignation

in a database, including the personal

information provided by each

contributor making a redesignation, in a

manner consistent with the

recordkeeping requirements for signed

written redesignations under 11 CFR

110.1(l). The Commission concluded

that this process provided assurance of

contributor identity and intent

equivalent to a written signature.

Accordingly, the Commission 

construes the written signature 

requirements of 11 CFR 110.1(b)(5) and 

110.2(b)(5) to encompass the method of 

electronic redesignation described 

above. Because the specific method 

approved by the Commission requires 

the contributor to provide personal 

information that can be verified against 

a committee’s records, it provides a 

level of assurance as to the contributor’s 

identity and intent comparable to that of 

a written signature. See Explanation and 

Justification for Final Rules on 

Contribution Limitations and 

Prohibitions, 67 FR 69928, 69934 (Nov. 

19, 2002) (Commission declined to 

eliminate the written signature 

requirement for contributor 

redesignations). 

The Commission encourages the use 

of innovations in technology to 

effectuate electronic redesignations. In 

that light, committees are advised that 

the Commission will consider other 

methods of electronic redesignation not 

explicitly addressed in this interpretive 

rule, provided that they offer a sufficient 

degree of assurance of the contributor’s 

identity and the contributor’s intent to 

redesignate. Unless and until the 

Commission initiates a rulemaking on 

this issue, such consideration may be 

provided on a case-by-case basis, 

including but not limited to the 

Commission’s advisory opinion process 

or requests for Commission 

consideration of legal questions. See 2 

U.S.C. 437f; 11 CFR part 112; Policy 

Statement Establishing a Pilot Program 

for Requesting Consideration of Legal 

Questions by the Commission, 75 FR 

42088 (July 20, 2010). Committees are 

also advised that this interpretive rule 

does not alter or affect the timing or 

recordkeeping requirements of 11 CFR 

110.1 or 110.2. 

This Federal Register notice 

represents an interpretive rule 

announcing the general course of action 

that the Commission intends to follow. 

This interpretive rule does not 

constitute an agency rule requiring 

notice of proposed rulemaking, 

opportunities for public participation, 

prior publication, and delay in effective 

date under 5 U.S.C. 553 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’). 

As such, it does not bind the 

Commission or any members of the 

general public, or create or remove any 

rights, duties, etc. The provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, which apply 

when notice and comment are required 

by the APA or another statute, are not 

applicable. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

Dated: March 16, 2011. 

On behalf of the Commission. 

Cynthia L. Bauerly, 

Chair, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6756 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P