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

16695 

Vol. 72, No. 65 

Thursday, April 5, 2007 

1The internal controls set forth here represent the 

minimum efforts a committee must take to qualify 

for this safe harbor. The FEC provides additional 

guidance on internal controls best practices at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/policy.shtml#guidance. 

2This policy does not absolve or mitigate FEC 

liability for individuals responsible or complicit in 

the misappropriations. 

3An imprest fund is one in which the sum of the 

disbursements recorded in the petty cash log since 

the last replenishment and the remaining cash 

always equals the stated amount of the fund. When 

the fund is replenished the amount of the 

replenishment equals the amounts recorded since 

the prior replenishment and should bring the cash 

balance back to the stated amount. Only one person 

should be in charge of the fund. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 104 

[NOTICE 2007–9] 

Statement of Policy; Safe Harbor for 

Misreporting Due to Embezzlement 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Statement of policy. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is issuing a 

Statement of Policy to announce that it 

is creating a safe harbor for the benefit 

of political committees that have certain 

internal controls in place to prevent 

misappropriations and associated 

misreporting. Specifically, the 

Commission does not intend to seek 

civil penalties against a political 

committee for filing incorrect reports 

due to the misappropriation of 

committee funds if the committee has 

the specified safeguards in place. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Joseph Stoltz, Assistant Staff Director, 

Audit Division, 999 E Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1200. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission has encountered a dramatic 

increase in the number of cases where 

political committee staff 

misappropriates committee funds. 

Misappropriations are often 

accompanied by the filing of inaccurate 

disclosure reports with the FEC, leaving 

committees vulnerable to a FEC 

enforcement action and potential 

liability for those reporting errors. In 

response to the rise in this activity, the 

Commission has concluded that the 

following internal controls are minimal 

safeguards a committee should 

implement to prevent misappropriations 

and associated misreporting. 

This policy does not impose new legal 

requirements on political committees; 

rather it creates a safe harbor. If the 

following internal controls are in place 

at the time of a misappropriation, and 

the post-discovery steps described 

below are followed by the committee, 

the FEC will not seek a monetary 

penalty on the political committee for 

filing incorrect reports due to the 

misappropriation of committee funds.1

The Commission will also consider the 

presence of some, but not all, of these 

practices, or of comparable safeguards, 

as a mitigating factor in considering any 

monetary liability resulting from a 

misappropriation.2

A. Internal Controls 

b All bank accounts are opened in the 

name of the committee, never an 

individual, using the committee’s 

Employer Identification Number, 

not an individual’s Social Security 

Number. 

b Bank statements are reviewed for 

unauthorized transactions and 

reconciled to the accounting 

records each month. Further, bank 

records are reconciled to disclosure 

reports prior to filing. The 

reconciliations are done by 

someone other than a check signer 

or an individual responsible for 

handling the committee’s 

accounting. 

b Checks in excess of $1000 are 

authorized in writing and/or signed 

by two individuals. Further, all 

wire transfers are authorized in 

writing by two individuals. The 

individuals who may authorize 

disbursements or sign checks 

should be identified in writing in 

the committee’s internal policies. 

b An individual who does not handle 

the committee’s accounting or have 

banking authority receives 

incoming checks and monitors all 

other incoming receipts. This 

individual makes a list of all 

committee receipts and places a 

restrictive endorsement, such as: 

For Deposit Only to the Account of 

the Payee’’ on all checks. 

b If the committee has a petty cash 

fund, an imprest system 3 is used, 

and the value of the petty cash fund 

should be no more than $500. 

B. Post-Discovery of Misappropriation 

Activity 

As soon as a misappropriation is 

discovered, the political committee: 

b Notifies relevant law enforcement of 

the misappropriation. 

b Notifies the FEC of the 

misappropriation. 

b Voluntarily files amended reports to 

correct any reporting errors due to 

the misappropriation, as required 

by the FEC. 

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 in effective date 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 22, 2007. 

Robert D. Lenhard, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–6299 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 111 

[Notice 2007–8] 

Policy Regarding Self-Reporting of 

Campaign Finance Violations (Sua 

Sponte Submissions) 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Statement of Policy. 

SUMMARY: In order to encourage the selfreporting of violations about which the 

Commission would not otherwise have 

learned, the Commission will generally 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
16696 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1 If a person who self-reports a violation of the 

FECA also makes specific allegations as to other 

persons not joining in the submission, and 

particularly where the person making the 

submission seeks to assign primary responsibility 

for the violations to another person (including an 

organization’s former officers or employees), the 

Commission, acting through its Office of General 

Counsel, may advise the self-reporting person that 

a portion of the relevant materials should be resubmitted as a complaint to which other persons 

would be allowed to respond prior to any findings 

by the Commission. 

2When violations are found, FECA requires the 

Commission to attempt to correct or prevent 

violations through conciliation agreements before 

suit may be filed in federal district court. 

3Some violations, for instance, are subject to a 

mandatory minimum penalty prescribed by statute. 

See 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(6)(C). 

offer penalties between 25% and 75% 

lower than the Commission would 

otherwise have sought in identical 

matters arising by other means. The 

Commission will also use a new 

expedited procedure through which the 

Commission may allow individuals and 

organizations that self-report violations 

and that make a complete report of their 

internal investigation to proceed 

directly into conciliation prior to the 

Commission determining whether their 

conduct may have violated statutes or 

regulations within its jurisdiction. This 

policy also addresses various issues that 

can arise in connection with parallel 

criminal, administrative or civil 

proceedings. 

DATES: Effective April 5, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Shonkwiler, Assistant General 

Counsel, or April J. Sands, Attorney, 

Enforcement Division, Federal Election 

Commission, 999 E Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 

or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Goals and Scope of the Policy 

The Commission periodically receives 

submissions from persons who selfreport statutory or regulatory violations 

of which the Commission had no prior 

knowledge. The Commission considers 

such self-reports (which also are 

referred to as sua sponte submissions) 

as information ascertained in the normal 

course of carrying out its supervisory 

responsibilities pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 

437g(a)(2), and may investigate if it 

determines there is reason to believe a 

violation has occurred. The Commission 

also investigates complaints reporting 

the potentially illegal conduct of 

another, submitted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 

437g(a)(1), but which also, by 

implication, provide a basis for 

investigating the complainant itself.1 As 

a general proposition, self-reported 

matters, when accompanied by full 

cooperation, will be resolved more 

quickly and on more favorable terms 

than identical matters arising by other 

means (e.g., those arising via external 

complaints, referrals from other 

government agencies, or referrals from 

the Commission’s Audit or Reports 

Analysis Divisions).2

The Commission recently has seen an 

increase in self-reported violations, 

which may be attributable, at least in 

part, to greater attention being placed on 

compliance programs for areas of 

potential organizational liability, and 

recognition that addressing a problem 

through self-auditing and self-reporting 

may help minimize reputational harm. 

The increase in the number of selfreported matters has highlighted the 

need to increase the transparency of 

Commission policies and procedures. 

Moreover, the Commission seeks to 

provide appropriate incentives for this 

demonstration of cooperation and 

responsibility. 

On December 8, 2006, the 

Commission published a proposed 

policy statement on self-reporting of 

violations. See Proposed Policy 

Regarding Self-Reporting of Campaign 

Finance Violations (Sua Sponte 

Submissions), 71 FR 71090 (December 

8, 2006). The comment period ended on 

January 29, 2007. Two comments were 

received. One of the comments 

supported the proposed policy and 

suggested some minor revisions. The 

other comment opposed the proposed 

policy. 

This policy provides an overview of 

the factors that influence the 

Commission’s handling and disposition 

of self-reported matters. It should be 

noted that while cooperation in general, 

and self-reporting in particular, will be 

considered by the Commission as 

mitigating factors, they do not excuse a 

violation of the Act or end the 

enforcement process. Also, this 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.3

II. Self-Reporting of FECA Violations 

Self-reporting of violations typically 

allows respondents to resolve their civil 

liability in a manner which has the 

potential to: (1) Reduce the investigative 

burden on both the Commission and 

themselves; (2) demonstrate their 

acceptance of organizational or personal 

responsibility and commitment to 

internal compliance; and (3) conclude 

their involvement in the Commission’s 

enforcement process on an expedited 

basis. As a result, a person who brings 

to the Commission’s attention violations 

of the FECA and Commission 

regulations and who cooperates with 

any resulting investigation will also 

generally receive appropriate 

consideration in the terms of an 

eventual conciliation agreement. For 

example, the Commission may do one 

or more of the following: 

• Take no action against particular 

respondents; 

• Offer a significantly lower penalty 

than what the Commission otherwise 

would have sought in a complaintgenerated matter involving similar 

circumstances or, where appropriate, no 

civil penalty; 

• Offer conciliation before a finding 

of probable cause to believe a violation 

occurred, and in certain cases proceed 

directly to conciliation without the 

Commission first finding reason to 

believe that a violation occurred; 

• Refrain from making a formal 

finding that a violation was knowing 

and willful, even where the available 

information would otherwise support 

such a finding; 

• Proceed only as to an organization 

rather than as to various individual 

agents or, where appropriate, proceed 

only as to individuals rather than 

organizational respondents; 

• Include language in the conciliation 

agreement that indicates the level of 

cooperation provided by respondents 

and the remedial action taken. 

Additionally, in cases where the 

submission includes privileged or 

sensitive information, the Commission 

may work with the submitter to protect 

privileged information from public 

disclosure while still allowing the 

Commission to verify the sufficiency of 

the submission. 

III. Factors Considered in Self-Reported 

Matters 

The Commission may take into 

account various factors in considering 

how to proceed regarding self-reported 

violations. In general, more expedited 

processing and a more favorable 

outcome will result when the selfreporting party can show that upon 

discovery of the potential violations, 

there was an immediate end to the 

activity giving rise to the violation(s); 

the respondent made a timely and 

complete disclosure to the Commission 

and fully cooperated in the disposition 

of the matter; and the respondent 

implemented appropriate and timely 

corrective measures, including internal 

safeguards necessary to prevent any 

recurrence. Further detail as to these 

factors is supplied below. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 16697 

4A respondent seeking to defend conduct based 

on advice of counsel may not simultaneously 

withhold documentary or other evidence 

supporting that assertion based on the attorneyclient privilege. 

5As discussed above, the Commission will, 

where appropriate, work with the submitter to 

protect privileged information from public 

disclosure. 

Nature of the Violation 

(1) The type of violation: Whether the 

violation was knowing and willful, or 

resulted from reckless disregard for legal 

requirements or deliberate indifference 

to indicia of wrongful conduct; 

negligent; an inadvertent mistake; or 

based on the advice of counsel; 4

(2) The magnitude of the violation: 

Whether the violation resulted from a 

one-time event or an ongoing pattern of 

conduct repeated over an extended 

period of time (and whether there was 

a history of similar conduct); how many 

people were involved in or were aware 

of the violation and the relative level of 

authority of these people within the 

organization; whether individuals were 

coerced into participating in the 

violation; the amount of money 

involved either in terms of absolute 

dollar amount or in terms of the 

percentage of an entity’s activity; and 

the impact the violation may have had 

on any federal election; 

(3) The origin of the violation: 

Whether the conduct was intended to 

advance the organization’s interests or 

to defraud the organization for the 

personal gain of a particular individual; 

whether there were compliance 

procedures in place to prevent the type 

of violation now uncovered and, if so, 

why those procedures failed to stop or 

deter the wrongful conduct; and 

whether the persons with knowledge of 

the violation were high-level officials in 

the organization. 

Extent of Corrective Action and New 

Self-Governance Measures 

(4) Investigative and corrective 

actions: Whether the violation 

immediately ceased upon its discovery; 

how long it took after discovery of the 

violation to take appropriate corrective 

measures, including disciplinary action 

against persons responsible for any 

misconduct; whether there was a 

thorough review of the nature, extent, 

origins, and consequences of the 

conduct and related behavior; whether 

the respondent expeditiously corrected 

and clarified the public record by 

making appropriate and timely 

disclosures as to the source and 

recipients of any funds involved in a 

violation; whether a federal political 

committee promptly made any 

necessary refunds of excessive or 

prohibited contributions; and whether 

an organization or individual 

respondent waived its claim to refunds 

of excessive or prohibited contributions 

and instructed recipients to disgorge 

such funds to the U.S. Treasury; 

(5) Post-discovery compliance 

measures: Whether there are assurances 

that the conduct is unlikely to recur; 

whether the respondent has adopted 

and ensured enforcement of more 

effective internal controls and 

procedures designed to prevent a 

recurrence of the violation; and whether 

the respondent provided the 

Commission with sufficient information 

for it to evaluate the measures taken to 

correct the situation and ensure that the 

conduct does not recur. 

Disclosure and Cooperation 

(6) Full disclosure of the violation to 

the Commission: Whether steps were 

taken upon learning of the violation; 

whether the disclosure was voluntary or 

made in recognition that the violation 

had been or was about to be discovered, 

or in recognition that a complaint was 

filed, or was about to be filed, by 

someone else; and whether a 

comprehensive and detailed disclosure 

of the results of its internal review was 

provided to the Commission in a timely 

fashion; 

(7) Full cooperation with the 

Commission: Whether the respondent 

promptly made relevant records and 

witnesses available to the Commission, 

and made all reasonable efforts to secure 

the cooperation of relevant employees, 

volunteers, vendors, donors and other 

staff without requiring compulsory 

process; whether the respondent agreed 

to waive or toll the statute of limitations 

for activity that previously had been 

concealed or not disclosed in a timely 

fashion. 

The Commission recognizes that all of 

the above-listed factors will not be 

relevant in every instance of selfreporting of potential FECA violations, 

nor is the Commission required to take 

all such factors into account. In 

addition, these factors should not be 

viewed as an exhaustive list. 

IV. Reduction in Penalties for SelfReporting Matters 

The Commission will generally 

reduce opening civil penalty offers by 

between 25% and 75% compared with 

identical matters arising from a 

complaint or by other means. The 

amount of the reduction depends on the 

facts and circumstances of a particular 

case. The Commission will consider the 

factors set forth above. 

Absent unusual circumstances, the 

Commission will grant a civil penalty 

reduction of 50% to respondents who 

meet the following criteria: 

• Respondents alert the Commission 

to potential violations before the 

violation had been or was about to be 

discovered by any outside party, 

including the Commission; 

• The violation immediately ceased 

and was promptly reported to the 

Commission upon discovery; 

• Respondents take appropriate and 

prompt corrective action(s) (e.g., 

changes to internal procedures to 

prevent a recurrence of the violation; 

increased training; disciplinary action 

where appropriate); 

• Respondents amend reports or 

disclosures to correct past errors, if 

applicable; 

• Any appropriate refunds, transfers, 

and disgorgements are made and/or 

waived; and 

• Respondents fully cooperate with 

the Commission in ensuring that the sua 

sponte submission is complete and 

accurate. 

In addition, the Commission may 

grant a civil penalty reduction of up to 

75% to respondents for violations in sua 

sponte submissions based on other 

factors such as submissions that were 

uncovered as a result of independent 

experts that were hired by respondents 

to conduct a thorough review, 

investigation or audit, or an equally 

comprehensive internal review, 

investigation or audit. In order to 

receive this reduction, respondents 

must also meet the above criteria for a 

50% reduction and provide the 

Commission with all documentation of 

the experts’ review, investigation, or 

audit.5

The required scope of the review, 

investigation or audit will depend on 

the circumstances. For example, if an 

organization discovers that an 

employee, stockholder or member may 

have reimbursed political contributions 

with organization funds, the 

Commission would consider a thorough 

review to include: Identification of all 

political contributions made by the 

suspect employee subsequent to and for 

at least three years prior to the 

suspected reimbursement (and 

extending further if additional suspect 

contributions are found); a review of 

contributions by anyone associated with 

the organization (including, but not 

limited to, relatives and subordinates) 

corresponding in time or recipient to the 

suspected reimbursed contributions; a 

review of the organization’s 

compensation (especially bonus) and 

expense reimbursement policies and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
16698 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

practices for the relevant periods to 

identify potential contribution 

reimbursements. Similarly, if an 

organization discovers it has misstated 

financial information on its reports, the 

Commission would consider a through 

review to include: An audit reconciling 

bank and internal financial records with 

FEC reports for the period in which the 

error was discovered, any subsequent 

reporting periods, and prior reporting 

periods for at least a year prior to the 

error (and extending further if 

additional errors are found); a review 

addressing internal controls and 

reporting procedures and identifying 

weaknesses contributing to the errors 

and remedies for those weaknesses. 

The Commission will be the sole 

arbiter of whether the facts of each case 

warrant a particular reduction in the 

penalty. The Commission will generally 

not give a respondent the benefit of this 

policy if the respondent is the subject of 

a criminal or other government 

investigation. In considering 

appropriate penalties, the Commission 

will also consider the presence of 

aggravating factors, such as knowing 

and willful conduct or involvement by 

senior officials of an entity. 

V. Fast-Track Resolution 

The Commission will generally not 

make a reason-to-believe finding or 

open a formal investigation for 

respondents that self-report violations, 

if: (1) All potential respondents in a 

matter have joined in a self-reporting 

submission that acknowledges their 

respective violations of the FECA; (2) 

those violations do not appear to be 

knowing and willful; (3) the submission 

is substantially complete and reasonably 

addresses the significant questions or 

issues related to the violation; and (4) 

the factual and legal issues are 

reasonably clear. Accordingly, the 

Commission is modifying its current 

practice to allow for an expedited FastTrack Resolution (‘‘FTR’’) for a limited 

number of matters involving selfreported violations. This procedure is 

available at the Commission’s 

discretion, but may be requested by 

respondents. 

Respondents eligible for the FTR 

process will meet with the Office of 

General Counsel to negotiate a proposed 

conciliation agreement before the 

Commission makes any formal findings 

in the matter. Although the Commission 

is always free to reject or seek 

modifications to a proposed conciliation 

agreement, it is expected that this 

process will allow for more expedited 

processing of certain types of violations 

where factual and legal issues are 

reasonably clear. It also will allow 

respondents to resolve certain matters 

short of the Commission finding that 

there is reason to believe that a violation 

has occurred. Examples of matters that 

might be eligible for such treatment 

include: 

• Matters in which an individual 

contributor discovers that he or she 

inadvertently violated the individual 

aggregate election cycle contribution 

limit contained in 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3); 

• Matters in which a political 

committee seeks to disclose and correct 

relatively straightforward reporting 

violations; 

• Matters in which a contributor and 

a political committee jointly seek to 

resolve their liability for a simple and 

inadvertent excessive or prohibited 

contribution; and 

• Matters in which the initial selfreporting submission by the 

respondents is sufficiently thorough that 

only very limited, if any, follow-up by 

the Office of the General Counsel is 

necessary to complete the factual 

record. 

VI. Parallel Proceedings 

The Commission recognizes that 

persons self-reporting to the 

Commission may face special concerns 

in connection with parallel criminal 

investigations, State administrative 

proceedings, and/or civil litigation. The 

Commission expects that persons who 

self-report to the Commission will 

inform the Commission of any existing 

parallel proceedings. The Commission 

encourages persons who self-report to 

the Commission also to self-report 

related violations to any law 

enforcement agency with jurisdiction 

over the activity. This will assist the 

Commission, where appropriate and 

possible, in working with other federal, 

state, and local agencies to facilitate a 

global and/or contemporaneous 

resolution of related violations by a selfreporting person. The possibility of such 

a resolution is enhanced when the selfreporting person expresses a willingness 

to engage other government agencies 

that may have jurisdiction over the 

conduct and to cooperate with joint 

discovery and disclosure of facts and 

settlement positions with respect to the 

different agencies. 

In situations where contemporaneous 

resolution of parallel matters is not 

feasible, the Commission will consider 

whether terms contained in a 

conciliation agreement with the 

Commission may affect potential 

liability the same respondent 

realistically faces from another agency. 

In appropriate cases, where there has 

been self-reporting and full cooperation, 

the Commission may agree to enter into 

conciliation without requiring 

respondents to admit that their conduct 

was knowing and willful, even where 

there is evidence that may be viewed as 

supporting this conclusion. The 

Commission has followed this practice 

in several self-reported matters where 

the organizational respondents 

promptly self-reported and took 

comprehensive and immediate 

corrective action that included the 

dismissal of all individual corporate 

officers whose actions formed the basis 

for the organization’s potential knowing 

and willful violation. 

The Commission has the statutory 

authority to refer knowing and willful 

violations of the FECA to the 

Department of Justice for potential 

criminal prosecution, 2 U.S.C. 

437g(a)(5)(C), and to report information 

regarding violations of law not within 

its jurisdiction to appropriate law 

enforcement authorities. 2 U.S.C. 

437d(a)(9). The Commission will take 

into consideration the fact of selfreporting in deciding whether to refer a 

matter. However, the Commission will 

not negotiate whether it refers, reports, 

or otherwise discusses information with 

other law enforcement agencies. 

Although the Commission cannot 

disclose information regarding an 

investigation to the public, it can and 

does share information on a confidential 

basis with other law enforcement 

agencies. 

VII. Conclusion 

The Commission seeks to encourage 

the self-reporting of violations. To that 

end, the Commission has adopted this 

policy that explains that sua sponte 

submissions will, in general, receive 

more expedited processing and more 

favorable outcomes than identical 

matters arising by other means. 

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 in effective date 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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 65 / Thursday, April 5, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 16699 

Dated: March 27, 2007. 

Robert D. Lenhard, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–6185 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Parts 611, 612, 614, 615, 618, 

619, 620, and 630 

RIN 3052–AC19 

Organization; Standards of Conduct 

and Referral of Known or Suspected 

Criminal Violations; Loan Policies and 

Operations; Funding and Fiscal 

Affairs, Loan Policies and Operations, 

and Funding Operations; General 

Provisions; Definitions; Disclosure to 

Shareholders; Disclosure to Investors 

in System-Wide and Consolidated 

Bank Debt Obligations of the Farm 

Credit System; Effective Date 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

ACTION: Announcement of effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit 

Administration (FCA) published a final 

rule under parts 611, 612, 614, 615, 618, 

619, 620, and 630 on February 2, 2006. 

This final rule amended our regulations 

affecting the governance of the Farm 

Credit System and became effective on 

April 5, 2006 (71 FR 18168, April 11, 

2006), except for the amendments to 

§§ 611.210(a)(2), 611.220(a)(2)(i) and 

(ii), 611.325, and 620.21(d)(2). This 

document announces the effective date 

of those delayed portions of the rule. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for 

the amendments to §§ 611.210(a)(2), 

611.220(a)(2)(i) and (ii), 611.325, and 

620.21(d)(2), published February 2, 

2006, at 71 FR 5740, is April 5, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Van Meter, Deputy Director, Office of 

Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit 

Administration, McLean, VA 22102–

5090, (703) 883–4232, TTY (703) 883–

4434; or Laura D. McFarland, Senior 

Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 

Farm Credit Administration, McLean, 

VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–4020, TTY 

(703) 883–4020. 

(12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(9) and (10)) 

Dated: April 2, 2007. 

Roland E. Smith, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. E7–6357 Filed 4–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27757; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–030–AD; Amendment 

39–15014; AD 2007–07–13] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream 

Aerospace LP Model Galaxy Airplanes 

and Model Gulfstream 200 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated 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: 

Avionics and electrical wire harnesses are 

routed behind the Primary Flight Displays 

(PFD) tray at the rear of the instrument panel. 

In some cases, the wire harness has been 

found to be chafing on the PFD tray. That 

could result in electrical arcing and shorting 

and subsequent loss of systems essential for 

safe flight. 

This AD requires actions that are 

intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 

20, 2007. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of April 20, 2007. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by May 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

AD, the regulatory evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Office (telephone (800) 647–

5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2677; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Streamlined Issuance of AD 

The FAA is implementing a new 

process for streamlining the issuance of 

ADs related to MCAI. This 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 

our technical decision-making 

responsibilities to identify and correct 

unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated 

products. 

This AD references the MCAI and 

related service information that we 

considered in forming the engineering 

basis to correct the unsafe condition. 

The AD contains text copied from the 

MCAI and for this reason might not 

follow our plain language principles. 

Discussion 

The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel 

(CAAI), which is the aviation authority 

for Israel, has issued Israeli 

Airworthiness Directive 31–07–01–12, 

dated February 15, 2007 (referred to 

after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

Avionics and electrical wire harnesses are 

routed behind the Primary Flight Displays 

(PFD) tray at the rear of the instrument panel. 

In some cases, the wire harness has been 

found to be chafing on the PFD tray. That 

could result in electrical arcing and shorting 

and subsequent loss of systems essential for 

safe flight. 

The corrective actions include 

inspecting the wiring harness for 

chafing, performing repairs if required; 

and inspecting the wire harnesses for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES