Federal R egister / V o l. 49, N o . 164 / W e d n e sd a y , A u g u st 22, 1984 / R u le s and R egulation s 33225

2. By amending § 97.25 LOC, LOC/ 

DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, and SDF/ 

DME SIAPs identified as follows:

* * * Effective September 27,1984

Escanaba, MI—Delta County, LOC/DM E (BC)

R W Y 27, AmdL 2

Portland, OR—Portland Inti, LOC/DM E RW Y

20, Arndt. 4

Temple, TX—Draughon-Miller Muni, LOC/

DME BC RW Y 33, Orig.

* * * Effective August 8,1984

Kalamazoo, MI—Kalamazoo Muni LOC BC 

R W Y 17, Arndt. 16

* * * Effective Ju ly 26,1984

Reno, NV—Reno Cannon Inti, LOC/DM E B C -

B, Arndt 6

Reno, N V—Reno Cannon Inti, LOC-1 RW Y

16R, Amdt. 3

Reno, N V —Reno Cannon Inti, LO C-2 RW Y

16R, Amdt. 2

3. By amending § 97.27 NDB and NDB/ 

DME SIAPs identified as follows:

* * * Effective September27,1984

Hartselle, AL—Roundtree Field, NDB-A,

Orig.

Harrison, AR—Boone County, NDB RW Y 18,

Amdt, 3

Harrison, AR—Boone County, NDB RW Y 36,

Amdt 3

Sacramento, C A —Sacramento Executive,

NDB RW Y 2, Arndt 9

Cambridge, MD—Cambridge-Dorchester,

NDB RW Y 34, Am dt 6

Easton, MD—Easton Muni, NDB RW Y 22,

Amdt. 5

Millville, NJ—Millville Muni, NDB RW Y 14,

Amdt. 5

Elizabeth City, N C—Elizabeth City C G Air

Station/Muni, N D B-A, Amdt. 8

Laredo, TX—Laredo Inti, NDB RW Y 17C.

Amdt. 5

PlatteviDe, WI—Grant County, NDB R W Y 25,

Amdt. 1

* * * Effective August 30,1984

Cadillac, MI—Wexford County, NDB RW Y

25, Amdt. 5

Austin, TX—Robert Mueller Muni, NDB R W Y

31L, Amdt. 31

* * * Effective August 2,1984

Coffeyville, KS—Caffeyville Muni, NDB RW Y

35, Amdt. 8

4. By amending § 97.29 ILS ILS/DME, 

ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME and MLS/

RNAV SIAPs identified as follows:

* Effective September 27,1984

Sacramento, C A —Sacramento Executive, ILS

R W Y 2 , Amdt. 2 2

Atlanta, G A —The William B. Hartsfield

Atlanta Inti, ILS RW Y 8, Amdt. 55

Escanaba, MI—Delta County, ILS RW Y 9,

Amdt. 2

Jackson, M S—Allen C. Thompson Field, ILS

R W Y 15L, Am dt 3

Las Vegas. NV—McCarran Inti, ILS RW Y 25,

Amdt. 11

Williamsport, PA—Williamsport~Lycoining

County, ILS RW Y 27, Amdt. 15

Laredo, TX—Laredo Inti, ILS RW Y 17C,

Amdt. 6

* * * Effective August 30,1984

Cadillac, MI—Wexford County, M LS RW Y

25, Orig.

Austin, TX—Robert Mueller Müni, ILS RW Y

31L, Amdt. 30

* * * Effective Ju ly 26,1984

San Francisco, C A —San Francisco Inti, ILS

RW Y 28R, Amdt. 5

Reno, N V —Reno Cannon Inti, ILS R W Y 16R,

Amdt. 5

5. By amending § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs 

identified as follows:

* * * Effective September 27,1984

Blytheville, AR—Blytheville, Muni, R A D A R -

1, Orig. '

New Orleans, LA —New Orleans Inti

(Moisant Field), RADAR 1, Amdt. 13

6. By amending § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs 

identified as follows:

* * * Effective September27,1984

Wichita, K S—Colonel James Jabara, R N A V

RW Y 18, Orig.

Ashland, KY—Ashland-Boyd County, R N A V

RW Y 28, Am dt 1, Cancelled

Blackwell, OK—Blackwell-Tonkawa Muni,

R N A V RW Y 17, Amdt. 1

Blackwell. OK—Blackwell-Tonkawa Muni,

R N A V RW Y 35, Am dt 1

* * * Effective August 30,1984

Cadillac, MI—Wexford County, R N A V RW Y

7. Amdt. 4

Cadillac, MI—Wexford County, R N A V RW Y

25, Am dt 3

* * * Effective August 2,1984

Coffeyville, K S—Coffeyville Muni, R N A V

RW Y 35, Amdt. 2

(Secs. 307,313(a), 601, and 1110, Federal

Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U .S.C. 1348,1354(a),

1421, and 1510); 49 U .S.C. 106(g) (Revised,

Pub. L. 97-449, January 12,1983); and 14 CFR

11.49(b)(3))

Note.—The F A A has determined that this

regulation only involves an established body

of technical regulations for which frequent

and routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current It

therefore—(1) Is not a “major rule” under

Executive Order 12291; (2) is not a

“significant role” under D OT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 F R 11034;

February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the

anticipated impact is so minimal. For the

same reason, the F A A certifies that this

amendment will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Note.—The incorporation by reference in

the preceding document was approved by the

Director of the Federal Register on December

31,1980, and reapproved as of January 1,

1982.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 1%

1984.

Kenneth S. Hunt,

Director of Fligh t Operations.

[FR Doc. 84-22184 Filed 8-21-64; &4S am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Parts 9007 and 9038

[Noth» 1984-141

Repayments by Publicly Financed

Presidential Candidates

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Final Rule; Transmittal to

Congress.

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

publishing today revised rules governing 

the formula used to determine 

repayments for non-quatified campaign 

expenses by publicly-financed 

Presidential candidates. The regulations 

provide for a pro-rata, rather than 100%, 

repayment of funds used for such 

expenses, in accordance with the recent 

decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit in Kennedy for

President Committee v. Federal Election

Com m ission, No, 83-1521 (D.C. Cir. May

15.1984) and Reagan fa r President

Committee v. Federal Election

Com m ission, No, 83-1666 (D.C. Cir. May

15.1984) . Further information on the 

revised regulations is found in the 

Supplemental Information which 

follows.

EFFECTIVE DATES: Further action, 

including the announcement of an 

effective date, will be taken by the 

Commission after these regulations have 

been before the Congress 30 legislative 

days in accordance with 26 U .S.C, 

9009(c) and 9039(c).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Susan E. Propper, Assistant General 

Counsel, (202) 523-4143 or Toll Free 

(800) 424-9530,

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

28,1984, the Commission published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking 

comments on proposed revisions to the 

regulations govering certain kinds of 

repayments by publicly-financed 

candidates. 49 FR 26596. The comment 

period ended on July 30,1984. No 

comments were received in response to 

the Notice.

26 U .S.C. 9009(c) and 9038(c) require 

that any rule or regulation prescribed by 

the Commission to carry out the 

provisions of Title 26, United States 

Code, be transmitted to the Speaker of 

the House of Representatives and the 

President of the Senate prior to final 

promulgation. These regulations were 

transmitted on August 17,1984.
33226 Federal R egister / V o l. 49, N o . 164 / W e d n e sd a y , A u g u st 22, 1984 / R ules and Regulations

Explanation and Justification

On May 15,1984, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that 

repayments by publicly-financed 

Presidential primary candidates for nonqualified campaign expenses should be 

“limited to the amount of federal funds 

that the Commission reasonably 

determined were spent” by the 

candidates for such purposes. Kennedy

for President Committee et al. v. Federal

Election Commission, No 83-1521 (D.C. 

Cir. May 15,1984); Reagan for President

Committee v. Federal Election

Commission, No. 83-1666, slip op. at 2 

(D.C. Cir. May 15,1984). In accordance 

with the court’s order, the Commission 

has revised its regulations, which 

currently require repayment of the total 

amount spent on non-qualified campaign 

expenses. See, 11 CFR 9007.2(b)(2) and 

9038.2(b)(2) [1983]. The revised 

regulations implement a pro-rata 

formula based on the proportion of 

federal funds to total funds received by 

the candidate. The amount of any 

repayment sought would then be a 

similar proportion of the total amount 

spent on non-qualified campaign 

expenses. In the case of Presidential 

primary candidates, the proportion of 

federal funds certified will be 

determined as of the candidates date of 

ineligibility. In the general election, a 

pro-rata formula will only be used for 

major party candidates who have 

received private contributions to make 

up a deficiency in the Fund and for 

minor or new party candidates receiving 

partial Federal funding. The use of such 

formulas is consistent with the court’s 

opinion, which does not require a 

mathematically precise determination of 

the amount of the Federal funds spent 

improperly but only a reasonable 

determination of the amount of federal 

matching funds so used. Kennedy slip 

op. at 7. Moreover, the revisions are 

limited to repayment determinations 

under 26 U.S.C. 9007(b)(4) and 

9038(b)(2), as those were the only types 

of repayment determinations addressed 

in the Kennedy and Reagan decisions.

To demonstrate how these formulas 

will operate, the Commission has 

prepared two examples of hypothetical 

repayment determinations under 26 

U.S.C. 9038(b)(2). Although the examples 

deal with repayments by Presidential 

primary candidates, they may be 

analogized to repayments by general 

election candidates as the issues 

presented in both cases are similar. The 

examples cover hypothetical 

repayments by candidates in a surplus 

and in a deficit position.

Illustration No. 1: Surplus Candidate

Assum ptions:

Date of ineligibility (DOI): 7/19/84.

Surplus on DOI: $1,000,000.

Matching funds received through DOI: 

$8,000,000 (net).

Total deposits through DOI:

$ 20,000,000.

Non-qualified campaign expenses 

incurred pre-DOI: $100,000 (in excess of 

New Hampshire limit).

Non-qualified campaign expenses 

incurred post-DOI: $25,000 (purchase of 

1984 Corvette).

1. Calculate 26 U .S.C. 9038(b)(3) ratio 

and determine amount of 26 U.S.C. 

9038(b)(3) surplus repayment.

The Audit staff verified the 

Candidate’s N O CO statement (as of 7/ 

19/84) and reach agreement with the 

Treasurer as to the amount of the 

surplus at DOI (i.e., $1,000,000). The 

Audit staff then calculated the 26 U.S.C. 

9038(b)(3) ratio using figures developed 

by reviewing reports and records of the 

Committee. The ratio calculated was •

$8,000,000

(40%) ---------------

$20,000,000 „

Applying this ratio (40%) to the 

verified surplus ($1,000,000) \ the 26 

U.S.C. 9038(b)(3) repayment amount 

becomes $400,000. Since some estimates 

(for winding down costs) were used to 

calculate the. surplus, adjustments to the 

amount repayable may be appropriate 

as a result of audit fieldwork updates.

2. Calculate 26 U.S.C. 9038(b)(2) ratio 

and determine amount of 26 U.S.C. 

9038(b)(2) repayment for non-qualified 

campaign expenses.

In order to determine the repayment 

for $100,000 in expenditures in excess of 

the New Hampshire state limit, several 

calculations and adjustments were 

performed by the Audit staff. First, the 

ratio had to be calculated. In this case, 

the Treasurer had workpapers 

supporting his calculation of the 26 

U.S.C.,9038(b)(2) ratio and the Audit 

staff verified his figures. The Treasurer’s 

ratio was

‘ The Treasurer included $25,000 in accounts

payable for expenses chargeable in the New

Hampshire limit and arrived at a calculated surplus

of $975,000. The Audit staff excluded the $25,000 in

accounts payable for non-qualified campaign

expenses, thus making the surplus $1,000,000.

$7,600,000

38.7755% ---------------

$19,600,000

The Treasurer reasoned that since 

$400,000 was to be repaid via the 26 

U.S.C. 9038(b)(3) repayment, actual 

matching funds certified (NET) was 

equal to matching funds certified 

thfough DOI ($8,000,000) less the 

$400,000 to be repaid. A similar 

adjustment was made to the 

denominator. The Audit staff explained 

that for purposes of calculating the 26 

U .S.C. 9038(b)(2) ratio, repayments 

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 9038(b)(1) and 

(b)(3) did not come into consideration.2 

The 26 U .S.C. 9038(b)(2) ratio was 

calculated to be

$8,000,000

40% ---------------

$20,000,000

Since the $100,000 ($75,000 paid and 

$25,000 yet to be paid) were the only 

non-qualified expenses incurred prior to 

date of ineligibility, the Audit staff 

simply multiplied 40% time $100,000 to 

arrived at the amount ($40,00d) 

repayable pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 

9038(b)(2).

With respect to the review of postDOI disbursements, the Audit staff 

noted a $25,000 payment for purchase of 

an automobile made on 8/2/84. It was 

also noted that the Treasurer had 

properly: (1) not included this amount 

for purposes of inclusion in the NOCO 

statement and (2) considered this 

expense to have been defrayed with 

excess campaign funds pursuant to 2 

U .S.C. 439a. (The Committee’s 

calculated residual funds after all 

repayments and qualified expenses 

were satisfied, amounted to 

approximately $560,000).

In summary, the total repayment 

requested would have been as follows:

$8,000,000

------------------ X $1,000,000 = $400,000

$ 20,000,000

26 U.S.C. 9038(b)(3):

2 There is no adjustment for repayments under 26

U .S.C . 9038 (b)(1) or (b)(3) because the repayment

formula for section 9039(b)(2) is based on the

amount of funds certified to the candidate and

therefore available to defray non-qualified

campaign expenses. This is so even if the

Commission may later determine that the candidate

was not entitled to a portion of the funds or that the

candidate had a surplus.
Federal Register / V o L 49, N o . 164 / W e d n e sd a y , A u g u st 22, 1984 / R ules and R egulation s 33227

$8,000,000

--------------— X $100,000=$40,000

$20,000,000

Total repayment, $440,000. 

Illustration No. 2: Deficit Candidate 

Assumptions:

Date of ineligibility (DOI): 3/20/84. 

Matching Funds Certified Through 

DOI: $3,000,000.3

Total Contributions Deposited 

Through DOI: $6,000,000.

Amount of Non-Qualified Expenses 

incurred Pre-DOI:

Undocumented.____________________ ____________'..... $50,000

Excess Iowa:..................................:..................................... 25,000

Total 26 U .S.C. 9038(b)(2) incurred preDOI.— --------------- --------------- 75,000

Amount of Non-Qualified Expenses 

incurred Post-DOI:

Date incurred Date paid Amount

paid

Non-qualified

type

June t, 1984____ July t , 1984 ... $20,000 Non-campaign

related

(Convention

expenses)

May 4,1985 May 4, 1965... 5,000 Transfer to 

National Party

Total postDOI nonqualified:

25,000

Amount of Last Matching Fund 

Payment: $1,750 on 2/5/85.

1. Calculate 26 U.S.C. 9038(b)(2) ratio 

and resultant repayment amount.

During initial fieldwork, the Audit 

staff reviewed workpapers prepared by 

the Treasurer concerning the 

Committee’s N OCO position and 26 

U.S.C. 9038(b)(2) repayment situation.

The Audit staff verified the Committee’s 

NOCO position (entitlement). Several 

differences were noted between the 

Committee Treasurer’s calculations and 

those performed by the Audit staff.

The Treasurer did not include the 

$300,000 matching payment received on 

3/23/84 in computing the 26 U.S.C. 

9038(b)(2) ratio. This appeared to be an 

oversight on the Treasurer’s part. The 

Audit staff pointed out that the 26 U.S.C. 

9038(b)(2) ratio (both numerator and 

denominator) is to include the amount of 

matching funds certified through the 

date of ineligibility, whether or not 

received by that date. Hence, the correct 

ratio for 26 U.S.C, 9038(b)(2) repayment 

Purpose was

’ Actual matching funds received through DOI

totaled $2,700,000; however, a certification for

«300,000 was approved on 3/18/84, with the

resulting payment not received until 3/23/84.

$3,000,000

--------------:---------------- or 33.3333%;

$3,000,000+$6,000,000

not the

$2,700,000

31.0345% or $2,700,000+$6,000,000

as originally calculated by the 

Treasurer. Applying the 33.3333% ratio 

to the amount of non-qualified campaign 

expenses incurred prior to the date of 

ineligibility ($75,000), the repayment 

amount was $25,000.

The Audit staff verified the figures 

contained on the Treasurer’s N OCO 

workpapers. It was noted that the 

Treasurer had included $25,000 in nonqualified expenses as a payable on her 

N O CO statement. This amount 

represented expenses for materials and 

services used in February 1984 which 

had not been paid and are included in 

the pre-ineligibility non-qualified 

expenses included above. The Audit 

staff explained that, if permitted, 

inclusion of the $25,000 in non-qualified 

campaign expenses could result in an 

additional $25,000 in matching fund 

entitlement.

During the audit fieldwork update, the 

Audit staff reviewed expenses incurred 

after the date of ineligibility, the 

updated N O CO statements submitted, 

and the liquidation of matching fund 

payments received after the date of 

ineligibility. It was noted that the 

Treasurer included on her N O CO 

statement, $20,000 in expenses relating 

to the candidate’s and his staffs travel, 

food and lodging costs at the nominating 

convention. The Audit staff pointed out 

two problems with the Treasurer’s 

approach.

First, the $20,000 in convention-related 

expenses were not valid winding down 

costs and, therefore, could not be 

defrayed with matching funds. The 

Audit staff informed the Treasurer that 

the $20,000 payment was a non-qualified 

campaign expense subject to repayment 

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 9038(b)(2). The 

Treasurer agreed.

Second, for the same reasons that the 

$25,000 in pre-DOI non-qualified 

campaign expenses could not be 

included on the N O CO statement, the 

$20,000 in post-DOI non-qualified 

campaign expenses also could not be 

included. Thus, the entitlement as 

calculated by the Treasurer was 

reduced by $20,000 4 and the 26 U .S.C.

4 To the extent the candidate’s entitlement was

inflated by this amount, a repayment determination

would also be made under 26 U .S.C. 9038(b)(1).

♦ 9038(b)(2) ratio was applied to the 

$20,000 which resulted in a repayment 

amount of $6,666.67 for convention 

expenses. It should be noted that the 

$5,000 transfer (dated 5/4/85) was made 

after all matching funds received had 

been disposed of and thus, this transfer 

was considered to have been made 

using non-federal monies.

The total 26 U.S.C. 9038(b)(2) 

repayment is $31,666.67, comprised of 

the following;

Pre-DOI non-qualified campaign expenses

($75,000x33.3333%)__________________________... $25,000.00

Post-DOI non-qualified expenses 

($20,000X33.3333%)..................„....................... 6,666,67

Total 26 U.S.C. 9038(b)(2) repayment 31,666.67

At the close of follow-up fieldwork, 

the Treasurer inquired concerning the 

possible impact of settling a $500,000 

debt for $50,(MX) in the near future. The 

Audit staff advised her of the 

Commission’s debt settlement 

procedures and informed the Treasurer 

that all N OCO statements filed carried 

this debt at $500,000. Should the debt be 

settled for less, it was the Commission’s 

policy to recalculate entitlement based 

on the $50,000 settlement amount, and 

seek a 26 U .S.C. 9038(b)(1) repayment, if 

appropriate.

Statutory Authority

26 U .S.C. 9007, 9038

List of Subjects in 11 CFR Parts 9007 and 

9038

Campaign funds, Administrative 

practice and procedure, Political 

candidates.

PART 9007—[ AMENDED]

11 CFR Part 9007 is amended by 

revising § 9007.2(b)(2)(i), (ii) (B), (C) and 

(D); and adding (b)(2)(iii) as follows:

§ 9007.2 Repayments.

★ * # * *•

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) If the Commission determines that 

any amount of any payment to an 

eligible candidate from the Fund was 

used for purposes other than those 

described in paragraphs (A) through (C) 

below, it will notify the candidate of the 

amount so used, and such candidate 

shall pay to the United States Treasury 

an amount equal to such amount. 

*****

(ii) * * *

(B) Determinations that amounts spent 

by a candidate, a candidate’s authorized 

committee(s), or agent(s) from the Fund
33228 Federal Register / V o l. 49, No. 164 / W ednesday, August 22, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

were not documented in accordance 

with 11 CFR 9003.5;

(C) Determinations that any portion of 

the payments made to a candidate from 

the Fund was expended in violation of 

State or Federal law; and

(D) Determinations that any portion of 

the payments made to a candidate from 

the Fund was used to defray expenses 

resulting from a violation of State or 

Federal law, such as the payment of 

fines or penalties.

(iii) In the case of a candidate who 

has received contributions pursuant to 

11 CFR 9003.3 (b) or (c), the amount of 

any repayment sought under this section 

shall bear the same ratio to the total 

amount determined to have been used 

for non-qualified campaign expenses as 

the amount of payments certified to the 

candidate from the Fund bears to the 

total amount of deposits of contributions 

and federal funds, as of December 31 of 

the Presidential election year.

* * * * *

PART 9038—[ AMENDED]

11 CFR Part 9038 is amended by 

revising § 9038.2(b)(2)(i), adding 

(b)(2)(iii) and revising (b)(3) as follows;

§ 9038.2 Repayments.

* * * * 4 ★

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) The Commission may determine 

that amounts of any payments made to a 

candidate from the matching payment 

account were used for purposes other 

than those set forth in (b)(2)(i) (A)-(Ç) of 

this section:

* * * * *

(iii) The amount of any repayment 

sought under this section shall bear the 

same ratio to the total amount 

determined to have been used for nonqualified campaign expenses as the 

amount of matching funds certified to 

the candidate bears to the total amount 

of deposits of contributions and 

matching funds, as of the candidate’s 

date of ineligibility.

(3) Failure to Provide Adequate

Documentation. The Commission may 

determine that amount(s) spent by the 

candidate, the candidate’s authorized 

committee(s), or agents were not 

documented in accordance with 11 CFR 

9033.11. The amount of any repayment 

sought under this section shall be 

determined by using the formula set 

forth in 11 CFR 9038.2(b)(2)(iii).

Dated: August 16,1984.

Lee Ann Elliott,

Chairman.

[FR Doc. 64-22212 Filed 8-21-84; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Housing—Federal Housing

Commissioner

24 CFR Part 1710

[Docket No. N-84-1286; FR-1732]

Guidelines for Exemptions Available

Under the Interstate Land Sales Full

Disclosure Act; Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of Final Guidelines 

(Interpretive Rule)—correction.

s u m m a r y : This document corrects an 

interpretive rule consisting of guidelines 

for exemptions under the Interstate 

Land Sales Full Disclosure Act that 

appeared in the Federal Register of 

Monday, August 6,1984 on page 31375 

(49 FR 31375). This document corrects 

the language of issuance to indicate that 

the Guidelines are Appendix A to Part 

1710, to assure that the Guidelines will 

be codified in the Code of Federal 

Regulations with that Part—as the 

preamble to the Guidelines stated was 

the Department’s intent.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John L. Brady, Director, Interstate Land 

Sales Registration Division, 202-755- 

0502. (This is not a toll-free number.)

On page 31375, third column, the last 

paragraph, the following words of 

issuance and heading, “Accordingly, the 

Exemption Guidelines are published as 

follows:

Guidelines for Exemptions Available 

Under the Interstate Land Sales Full 

Disclosure Act” are corrected to read as 

follows:

“Accordingly, 24 CFR Part 1710 is 

amended by adding Appendix A , to read 

as follows:

Appendix A —Guidelines for 

Exemptions Available Under the 

Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure 

Act”

Dated: August 17,1984.

Grady J. Norris,

Assistant General Counsel for Regulations.

[FR Doc. 84-22072 Filed 8-21-84; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 4210-27-M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1 and 5f

[T.D. 7965]

Income Taxes; Sanctions on Issuers

and Holders of Registration-Required

Obligations Not in Registered Form

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, 

Treasury.

ACTION: Temporary regulations.

s u m m a r y : This document contains 

temporary regulations relating to the 

definition of the term “registrationrequired obligation” with respect to 

obligations issued to certain foreign 

persons and the imposition of sanctions 

on issuers issuing registration-required 

obligations in bearer form. This 

document also contains temporary 

regulations relating to the imposition of 

sanctions on persons holding 

registration-required obligations in 

bearer form. This document removes 

§ 5f.163-1 (c) of the existing temporary 

regulations. Changes to the applicable 

law were made by the Tax Equity and 

Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 

(TEFRA) and the Tax Reform Act of 

1984 (the 1984 Act). These temporary 

regulations affect issuers and holders of 

obligations and provide them with 

guidance needed to comply with the 

law. '

DATES: Thè temporary regulations under 

sections 163,165, and 1287 and the 

removal of § 5f.l63-l(c) are effective 

with respect to obligations originally 

issued after September 21,1984.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

P. Ann Fishers or Carol T. Doran of the 

Legislation and Regulations Division, 

Office of Chief Counsel, Internal 

Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue, N.W ., Washington, D.C. 20224 

(Attention: CC:LR:T) (202-566-3289). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 15,1982, the Federal 

Register published temporary 

regulations (26 CFR Part 5f) (47 FR 

51361) and proposed regulations (26 CFR 

Part 1) (47 FR 51414) under section 163 of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. On 

September 2,1983, the Federal Register 

published revisions to proposed 

amendments to the Income Tax 

Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) under 

section 163 and published proposed 

amendments to the Income Tax 

Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) under 

sections 165, and 1232 of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1954 (48 FR 39953). The