This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

12545 

Vol. 72, No. 51 

Friday, March 16, 2007 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 111 

[Notice 2007–6] 

Statement of Policy Regarding 

Commission Action in Matters at the 

Initial Stage in the Enforcement 

Process 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Statement of Policy. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Election 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is issuing 

a Policy Statement to clarify the various 

ways that the Commission addresses 

Matters Under Review (‘‘MURs’’) at the 

initial stage of enforcement proceedings. 

The Commission may take any of the 

four following actions at this stage: find 

‘‘reason to believe,’’ ‘‘dismiss,’’ ‘‘dismiss 

with admonishment,’’ and find ‘‘no 

reason to believe.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: March 16, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Shonkwiler, Assistant General 

Counsel, or Lynn Tran, Attorney, 

Enforcement Division, Federal Election 

Commission, 999 E Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 

or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 

as amended, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. 

(‘‘FECA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), grants the 

Commission ‘‘exclusive jurisdiction 

with respect to civil enforcement’’ of the 

provisions of the Act and Chapters 95 

and 96 of Title 26. 2 U.S.C. 437c(b)(1). 

Enforcement matters come to the 

Commission through complaints from 

the public; information ascertained in 

the ordinary course of the Commission’s 

supervisory responsibilities, including 

referrals from the Commission’s Reports 

Analysis and Audit Divisions; referrals 

from other government agencies; and 

self-reported submissions. 

The FECA provides that ‘‘upon 

receiving a complaint’’ or upon the basis 

of information ascertained in the course 

of carrying out its supervisory 

responsibilities, the Commission ‘‘shall 

make an investigation of such alleged 

violation’’ of the Act where the 

Commission, with the vote of four 

members, determines that there is 

‘‘reason to believe that a person has 

committed, or is about to commit’’ a 

violation of the Act. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2); 

see also 11 CFR 111.10(f). Commission 

‘‘reason to believe’’ findings have 

caused confusion in the past because 

they have been viewed as definitive 

determinations that a respondent 

violated the Act. In fact, ‘‘reason to 

believe’’ findings indicate only that the 

Commission found sufficient legal 

justification to open an investigation to 

determine whether a violation of the Act 

has occurred. Indeed, the Commission 

has recommended that Congress modify 

the FECA to clarify this point. See 

Legislative Recommendations in 2003 

and 2004 FEC Annual Reports. Other 

kinds of dispositions at this preliminary 

stage would also benefit from 

clarification to ensure consistency and 

promote understanding of the 

Commission’s reasons for taking action. 

Thus, the Commission is issuing this 

policy statement to assist complainants, 

respondents, and the public in 

understanding the Commission’s 

findings at this stage of the enforcement 

process. 

Generally speaking, at the initial stage 

in the enforcement process, the 

Commission will take one of the 

following actions with respect to a 

MUR: (1) Find ‘‘reason to believe’’ a 

respondent has violated the Act; (2) 

dismiss the matter; (3) dismiss the 

matter with admonishment; or (4) find 

‘‘no reason to believe’’ a respondent has 

violated the Act. This policy statement 

is intended to clarify the circumstances 

under which the Commission uses each 

of these dispositions. 

A. ‘‘Reason To Believe’’ 

The Act requires that the Commission 

find ‘‘reason to believe that a person has 

committed, or is about to commit, a 

violation’’ of the Act as a predicate to 

opening an investigation into the 

alleged violation. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2). 

The Commission will find ‘‘reason to 

believe’’ in cases where the available 

evidence in the matter is at least 

sufficient to warrant conducting an 

investigation, and where the seriousness 

of the alleged violation warrants either 

further investigation or immediate 

conciliation. A ‘‘reason to believe’’ 

finding will always be followed by 

either an investigation or pre-probable 

cause conciliation. For example: 

• A ‘‘reason to believe’’ finding 

followed by an investigation would be 

appropriate when a complaint credibly 

alleges that a significant violation may 

have occurred, but further investigation 

is required to determine whether a 

violation in fact occurred and, if so, its 

exact scope. 

• A ‘‘reason to believe’’ finding 

followed by conciliation would be 

appropriate when the Commission is 

certain that a violation has occurred and 

the seriousness of the violation warrants 

conciliation. 

A ‘‘reason to believe’’ finding by itself 

does not establish that the law has been 

violated. When the Commission later 

accepts a conciliation agreement with a 

respondent, the conciliation agreement 

speaks to the Commission’s ultimate 

conclusions. When the Commission 

does not enter into a conciliation 

agreement with a respondent, and does 

not file suit, a Statement of Reasons, a 

Factual and Legal Analysis, or a General 

Counsel’s Report may provide further 

explanation of the Commission’s 

conclusions. 

The Commission has previously used 

the finding ‘‘reason to believe, but take 

no further action’’ in cases where the 

Commission finds that there is a basis 

for investigating the matter or 

attempting conciliation, but the 

Commission declines to proceed for 

prudential reasons. As discussed below, 

the Commission believes that resolving 

these matters through dismissal or 

dismissal with admonishment more 

clearly conveys the Commission’s 

intentions and avoids possible 

confusion about the meaning of a reason 

to believe finding. 

B. Dismissal and Dismissal With 

Admonishment 

Under Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 

821 (1985), the Commission has broad 

discretion to determine how to proceed 

with respect to complaints or referrals. 

The Commission has exercised its 

prosecutorial discretion under Heckler 

to dismiss matters that do not merit the 

additional expenditure of Commission 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
12546 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 51 / Friday, March 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1The FECA and Commission regulations also 

recognize the Commission’s authority to dismiss 

enforcement matters. See 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(1); 11 

CFR 111.6(b) and 111.7(b). 

resources.1 As with other actions taken 

by the Commission, dismissal of a 

matter requires the vote of at least four 

Commissioners. 

Pursuant to the exercise of its 

prosecutorial discretion, the 

Commission will dismiss a matter when 

the matter does not merit further use of 

Commission resources, due to factors 

such as the small amount or significance 

of the alleged violation, the vagueness 

or weakness of the evidence, or likely 

difficulties with an investigation, or 

when the Commission lacks majority 

support for proceeding with a matter for 

other reasons. For example, a dismissal 

would be appropriate when: 

• The seriousness of the alleged 

conduct is not sufficient to justify the 

likely cost and difficulty of an 

investigation to determine whether a 

violation in fact occurred; or 

• The evidence is sufficient to 

support a ‘‘reason to believe’’ finding, 

but the violation is minor. 

The Commission may also dismiss 

when, based on the complaint, 

response, and publicly available 

information, the Commission concludes 

that a violation of the Act did or very 

probably did occur, but the size or 

significance of the apparent violation is 

not sufficient to warrant further pursuit 

by the Commission. In this latter 

circumstance, the Commission will send 

a letter admonishing the respondent. 

For example, a dismissal with 

admonishment would be appropriate 

when: 

• A respondent admits to a violation, 

but the amount of the violation is not 

sufficient to warrant any monetary 

penalty; or 

• A complaint convincingly alleges a 

violation, but the significance of the 

violation is not sufficient to warrant 

further pursuit by the Commission. 

C. ‘‘No Reason To Believe’’

The Commission will make a 

determination of ‘‘no reason to believe’’

a violation has occurred when the 

available information does not provide 

a basis for proceeding with the matter. 

The Commission finds ‘‘no reason to 

believe’’ when the complaint, any 

response filed by the respondent, and 

any publicly available information, 

when taken together, fail to give rise to 

a reasonable inference that a violation 

has occurred, or even if the allegations 

were true, would not constitute a 

violation of the law. For example, a ‘‘no 

reason to believe’’ finding would be 

appropriate when: 

• A violation has been alleged, but 

the respondent’s response or other 

evidence convincingly demonstrates 

that no violation has occurred; 

• A complaint alleges a violation but 

is either not credible or is so vague that 

an investigation would be effectively 

impossible; or 

• A complaint fails to describe a 

violation of the Act. 

If the Commission, with the vote of at 

least four Commissioners, finds that 

there is ‘‘no reason to believe’’ a 

violation has occurred or is about to 

occur with respect to the allegations in 

the complaint, the Commission will 

close the file and respondents and the 

complainant will be notified. 

D. Conclusion 

This policy enunciates and describes 

the Commission’s standards for actions 

at the point of determining whether or 

not to open an investigation or to enter 

into conciliation with respondents prior 

to a finding of probable cause to believe. 

The policy does not confer any rights on 

any person and does not in any way 

limit the right of the Commission to 

evaluate every case individually on its 

own facts and circumstances. 

This notice represents a general 

statement of policy announcing the 

general course of action that the 

Commission intends to follow. This 

policy statement does not constitute an 

agency regulation requiring notice of 

proposed rulemaking, opportunities for 

public participation, prior publication, 

and delay effective under 5 U.S.C. 553 

of the Administrative Procedures Act 

(‘‘APA’’). As such, it does not bind the 

Commission or any member of the 

general public. The provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), which apply when notice and 

comment are required by the APA or 

another statute, are not applicable. 

Dated: March 7, 2007. 

Robert D. Lenhard, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–4868 Filed 3–15–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–26166; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–CE–58–AD; Amendment 39–

14992; AD 2007–06–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; EADS 

SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

Cracks on a vertical stabilizer attachment 

fitting due to corrosion, have been found on 

an aircraft in service. 

We are issuing this AD to require 

actions to correct the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 

20, 2007. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of April 20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri, 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4119; fax: (816) 329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Streamlined Issuance of AD 

The FAA is implementing a new 

process for streamlining the issuance of 

ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined 

process will allow us to adopt MCAI 

safety requirements in a more efficient 

manner and will reduce safety risks to 

the public. This process continues to 

follow all FAA AD issuance processes to 

meet legal, economic, Administrative 

Procedure Act, and Federal Register 

requirements. We also continue to meet 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES