Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26569 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management 

Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, telephone (301) 415–6219, e-mail 

jmm2@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

6219, e-mail jmm2@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule published in the Rules and 

Regulations section of this Federal 

Register. 

Procedural Background 

This rule is limited to the changes 

contained in Amendment 5 to CoC No. 

1025 and does not include other aspects 

of the NAC–MPC design. Because NRC 

considers this action noncontroversial 

and routine, the NRC is publishing this 

proposed rule concurrently as a direct 

final rule. Adequate protection of public 

health and safety continues to be 

ensured. The direct final rule will 

become effective on July 24, 2007. 

However, if the NRC receives significant 

adverse comments by June 11, 2007, 

then the NRC will publish a document 

that withdraws the direct final rule and 

will subsequently address the comments 

received in a final rule. The NRC will 

not initiate a second comment period on 

this action. 

A significant adverse comment is a 

comment where the commenter 

explains why the rule would be 

inappropriate, including challenges to 

the rule’s underlying premise or 

approach, or would be ineffective or 

unacceptable without a change. A 

comment is adverse and significant if: 

(1) The comment opposes the rule and 

provides a reason sufficient to require a 

substantive response in a notice-andcomment process. For example, a 

substantive response is required when—

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff 

to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position 

or conduct additional analysis; 

(b) The comment raises an issue 

serious enough to warrant a substantive 

response to clarify or complete the 

record; or 

(c) The comment raises a relevant 

issue that was not previously addressed 

or considered by the NRC staff. 

(2) The comment proposes a change 

or an addition to the rule, and it is 

apparent that the rule would be 

ineffective or unacceptable without 

incorporation of the change or addition. 

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff 

to make a change (other than editorial) 

to the rule, CoC, or TS. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Criminal penalties, 

Manpower training programs, Nuclear 

materials, Occupational safety and 

health, Penalties, Radiation protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, Spent 

fuel, Whistleblowing. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC 

is proposing to adopt the following 

amendments to 10 CFR part 72. 

PART 72—LICENSING 

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT 

NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND 

REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN 

CLASS C WASTE 

1. The authority citation for part 72 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 

81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 

929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 

955, as amended; sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 

2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 

2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. 

L. 86–373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 

88 Stat. 1242; as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 

U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95–601, sec. 

10, 92 Stat. 2951, as amended by Pub. L. 102–

486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 

5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 

(42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 

137, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 

2232, 2241; sec. 148, Pub. L. 100–203, 101 

Stat. 1330–235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 

10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 

1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); 

sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 806–10 

(42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). 

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 

142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100–203, 101 

Stat. 1330–232, 1330–236 (42 U.S.C. 

10162(b), 10168(c),(d)). Section 72.46 also 

issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 

2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2230 

(42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also 

issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100–203, 

101 Stat. 1330–235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). 

Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 

2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 

2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 

10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L 

are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 

(42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 

2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 

2. In § 72.214, Certificate of 

Compliance 1025 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel 

storage casks. 

* * * * * 

Certificate Number: 1025. 

Initial Certificate Effective Date: April 

10, 2000. 

Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: 

November 13, 2001. 

Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: 

May 29, 2002. 

Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: 

October 1, 2003. 

Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: 

October 27, 2004. 

Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: 

July 24, 2007. 

SAR Submitted by: NAC 

International, Inc. 

SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis 

Report for the NAC Multi-Purpose 

Canister System (NAC–MPC System). 

Docket Number: 72–1025. 

Certificate Expiration Date: April 10, 

2020. 

Model Number: NAC–MPC. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of April, 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Martin J. Virgilio, 

Acting Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. E7–9007 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 106 

[Notice 2007–10] 

Hybrid Communications 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Election 

Commission requests comments on a 

proposed rule to attribute the 

disbursements for a public 

communication made by a political 

party that refers to a clearly identified 

Federal candidate and that also 

generically refers to other candidates of 

a political party without clearly 

identifying them. Several alternatives 

are presented, including an alternative 

to include public communications that 

refer to multiple Federal candidates. 

The Commission has made no final 

decision on the issues presented in this 

rulemaking. Further information is 

provided in the supplementary 

information that follows. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 11, 2007. The 

Commission will hold a hearing on the 

proposed rules on July 11, 2007 at 10 

a.m. Anyone wishing to testify at the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
26570 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1Available at www.fec.gov/law/law.shtml. 

2Available at www.fec.gov/audits/audit_reports_

pres.shtml. 

hearing must file written comments by 

the due date and must include a request 

to testify in the written comments. 

ADDRESSES: All comments must be in 

writing, must be addressed to Ms. Amy 

L. Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel, 

and must be submitted in either e-mail, 

facsimile, or paper copy form. 

Commenters are strongly encouraged to 

submit comments by e-mail to ensure 

timely receipt and consideration. E-mail 

comments must be sent to 

hybridads@fec.gov. If e-mail comments 

include an attachment, the attachment 

must be in either Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) 

or Microsoft Word (.doc) format. Faxed 

comments must be sent to (202) 219–

3923, with paper copy follow-up. Paper 

comments and paper copy follow-up of 

faxed comments must be sent to the 

Federal Election Commission, 999 E 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. All 

comments must include the full name 

and postal service address of the 

commenter or they will not be 

considered. The Commission will post 

comments on its Web site after the 

comment period ends. The hearing will 

be held in the Commission’s ninth-floor 

meeting room, 999 E Street, NW., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General 

Counsel, Ms. Esa L. Sferra, Attorney, or 

Mr. Robert M. Knop, Attorney, 999 E 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463, 

(202) 694–1650 or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through 

this rulemaking, the Commission seeks 

to establish how political party 

committees attribute disbursements for 

‘‘hybrid communications’’—

communications that refer both to one 

or more clearly identified Federal 

candidates and generically to candidates 

of a political party (‘‘generic party 

reference’’). 

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 

current Commission regulations do not 

explicitly provide for the attribution of 

disbursements for hybrid 

communications, except for those 

communications distributed by means 

of a telephone bank. See 11 CFR 106.8 

(requiring disbursements to be 

attributed equally between the Federal 

candidate clearly identified in the 

communication and the political party 

committee making the communication). 

Recently, the Commission considered 

the attribution of disbursements for 

hybrid communications made by a 

political party committee through two 

other types of public communication: 

Hybrid communications by means of 

mass mailings and hybrid 

communications by means of broadcast 

television and radio. See Advisory 

Opinion 2006–11 (Washington 

Democratic State Central Committee) 

(mass mailings); 1 Report of the Audit 

Division on Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. and 

the Bush-Cheney ’04 Compliance 

Committee, Inc. (approved March 22, 

2007) (‘‘Final Audit Report’’) (television 

and radio advertisements).2 The 

proposed rule discussed below presents 

alternative methods for attributing the 

disbursements for various forms of 

hybrid communications made by 

political party committees, and would 

supersede and replace current 11 CFR 

106.8. 

I. Background 

The general rule for attributing 

disbursements for a communication 

made on behalf of more than one 

Federal candidate clearly identified in 

the communication is based on the 

‘‘benefit reasonably expected to be 

derived’’ by the candidates. See 11 CFR 

106.1(a). Under § 106.1(a), that benefit is 

determined by the proportion of space 

or time, or number of questions or 

statements, devoted to each clearly 

identified Federal candidate as 

compared to the total space or time, or 

number of questions or statements, 

devoted to all clearly identified Federal 

candidates. The percentage reflecting 

the relative proportion of space or time 

devoted to a clearly identified Federal 

candidate is the percentage of the 

disbursements for the communication 

attributed to that candidate (‘‘space or 

time attribution’’). The terms of this rule 

are limited to communications that refer 

to two or more clearly identified Federal 

candidates, and do not provide a 

method for a political party to attribute 

a portion of the communication to itself, 

through a generic party reference. 

Current section 106.8 does permit 

attribution of the benefit reasonably 

expected to be derived from a generic 

party reference in hybrid 

communications made by a political 

party, but only when the 

communication is made by means of a 

telephone bank. See 11 CFR 106.8; Final 

Rules and Explanation and Justification 

for Party Committee Telephone Banks, 

68 FR 64517 (Nov. 14, 2003) 

(‘‘Telephone Bank Final Rules’’). 

Currently, section 106.8 requires 

disbursements for the communication to 

be attributed equally to the clearly 

identified Federal candidate and the 

political party making the 

communication. 

Recently, the Commission was asked 

to address the attribution of 

disbursements for a hybrid 

communication by means of a mass 

mailing paid for by a State committee of 

a political party. In Advisory Opinion 

2006–11 (Washington Democratic State 

Central Committee), the Commission 

noted that ‘‘[n]either the Act nor 

Commission regulations definitively 

address the appropriate allocation of 

payments for’’ a mass mailing that 

referred to one clearly identified Federal 

candidate and contained a generic party 

reference. Advisory Opinion 2006–11. 

‘‘Section 106.1(a) provides the general 

rule that expenditures made on behalf of 

more than one clearly identified 

candidate ‘shall be attributed to each 

such candidate according to the benefit 

reasonably expected to be derived.’ ’’ Id. 

‘‘Commission regulations at 11 CFR 

106.8 (which apply only to phone banks 

conducted by a party committee) do 

address the attribution required for a 

communication that possesses the same 

attributes as the mass mailings 

described in [the] request (i.e., reference 

to only one clearly identified Federal 

candidate along with a generic reference 

to other party candidates; and no 

solicitation of funds).’’ Id. The 

Commission nonetheless concluded that 

at least 50 percent of the disbursements 

should be attributed to the clearly 

identified Federal candidate. If the 

space devoted to that Federal candidate 

exceeds the amount of space devoted to 

the generic party reference, the 

disbursement must be attributed to the 

Federal candidate based on an analysis 

of the space or time devoted to the 

Federal candidate, as compared to the 

space or time devoted to the generic 

party reference, pursuant to guidance in 

11 CFR 106.1(a). 

Most recently, the Commission was 

presented with the issue of attributing 

disbursements for hybrid 

communications by means of broadcast 

television and radio paid for in part by 

a publicly funded presidential 

candidate and in part by a national 

committee of a political party. See Final 

Audit Report. The national committee 

attributed 50 percent of the 

disbursements for the hybrid 

communications to its publicly funded 

presidential candidate clearly identified 

in the communications, and 50 percent 

to the political party committee. In the 

Final Audit Report, the Commission 

considered the extent to which, if any, 

11 CFR 106.1 and 106.8 provided 

guidance for attributing the 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26571 

3Statements of Reasons issued by Commissioners 

on the Final Audit Report are available at http:// 

www.fec.gov. 

4For purposes of this section, the Commission 

would consider a reference to a clearly indentified 

presidential and vice presidential candidate of the 

same political party as a reference to one clearly 

identified candidate. 

disbursements for the communications, 

but did not make a finding.3 Id. 

The Commission is proposing to 

amend current 11 CFR 106.8 to address 

the attribution of disbursements for 

hybrid communications made through 

all types of ‘‘public communication’’ as 

defined in 11 CFR 100.26. Proposed 

section 106.8 would be divided into 

paragraph (a) setting out the scope of the 

proposed rule, paragraph (b) setting out 

the attribution formulas, and paragraph 

(c) describing the reporting of 

disbursements attributed under the 

proposed rule. The discussion below 

explains each paragraph separately and 

also seeks comment on the proposed 

rule. 

II. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)—Scope 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8 would apply 

to any ‘‘public communication,’’ as 

defined in 11 CFR 100.26, which 

includes broadcast, cable, and satellite 

communications; newspapers and 

magazines; outdoor advertising 

facilities; mass mailings; telephone 

banks; and Internet communications 

placed for a fee on another person’s Web 

site. See 2 U.S.C. 431(22); 11 CFR 

100.26. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8 would 

address the attribution of disbursements 

for a public communication made by 

any national, State, district, or local 

party committee, including national 

congressional campaign committees and 

convention committees, see 11 CFR 

9008.3(a)(2), that contains a generic 

party reference and also refers to only 

one clearly identified Federal candidate, 

such as ‘‘Show your support for Senator 

X and our other great Democratic 

candidates.’’ As discussed below, 

proposed 11 CFR 106.8 would also 

address the attribution of disbursements 

for a public communication that refers 

to two or more clearly identified Federal 

candidates, provided that those 

candidates are running for the same 

Federal office.4 An additional proposed 

alternative would further address the 

attribution of disbursements for a public 

communication that refers to two or 

more clearly identified Federal 

candidates running for different Federal 

offices. Neither the proposed rule nor 

any of the alternatives presented would 

apply to disbursements for public 

communications that are independent 

expenditures. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

all aspects of the scope of proposed 11 

CFR 106.8. Should the Commission 

apply a uniform attribution rule to all 

types of public communication? In 

2003, the Commission ‘‘decided to limit 

the scope of new section 106.8 to phone 

banks * * * because each type of 

communication presents different issues 

that need to be considered in further 

detail before establishing new rules.’’

Telephone Bank Final Rules, 68 FR at 

64518. Are there communicationspecific considerations that counsel 

against adoption of a uniform approach? 

A. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(i) and 

(ii)—Reference to a Clearly Identified 

Federal Candidate 

1. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(i)(A) and 

(B) 

The proposed rule would extend to 

two types of public communications. 

The first type refers to only one clearly 

identified Federal candidate and does 

not refer to any other clearly identified 

Federal or non-Federal candidate. The 

clearly identified Federal candidate 

could be either a candidate of the 

political party making the 

communication, or an opposing 

candidate. The Commission requests 

comment on this approach. 

The second type of public 

communication covered by the 

proposed rule refers to two or more 

clearly identified Federal candidates 

running for the same Federal office, 

only one of whom is a candidate of the 

political party making the public 

communication, provided the 

communication does not clearly identify 

any other Federal or non-Federal 

candidate. This portion of the proposed 

rule is intended to reach 

communications that compare or 

contrast the political party’s own clearly 

identified Federal candidate with other 

clearly identified candidates not 

supported by the political party. The 

Commission requests comment on this 

approach. 

For purposes of the proposed rule, a 

Federal candidate of a political party 

would include both a Federal candidate 

seeking the nomination of that political 

party and a candidate who has already 

obtained that political party’s 

nomination. 

2. Proposed Alternative 11 CFR 

106.8(a)(1)(i)(C)—Multiple Federal 

Candidate Reference 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(i)(C) 

would extend the rule to a third type of 

public communication, namely a public 

communication that refers to multiple 

clearly identified Federal candidates of 

the same political party who are seeking 

different Federal offices. This portion of 

the proposed rule is intended to reach 

communications that promote a ‘‘slate’’

of a political party’s candidates, along 

with the party itself. For example, 

proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(i)(C) would 

permit attribution of a public 

communication that refers to a political 

party’s candidates for both U.S. Senate 

and U.S. House of Representatives. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

this approach. Are such 

communications quantitatively different 

from communications clearly 

identifying Federal candidates for the 

same Federal office only? Is the value of 

the generic party reference in a hybrid 

communication diluted by the inclusion 

of more clearly identified candidates? 

The Commission seeks comments on 

such an approach and possible methods 

for attributing disbursements for a 

communication clearly identifying 

multiple Federal candidates of the same 

political party seeking different Federal 

offices between those candidates and 

the political party making the 

communication. If the Commission were 

to adopt this approach, should it 

exclude public communications that 

include a reference to a clearly 

identified non-Federal candidate? What 

would be the consequences of including 

such a reference? 

B. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(iii)— 

Generic Party Reference 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(iii) 

would define a generic party reference 

in a public communication as a 

reference to other Federal or nonFederal candidates that does not clearly 

identify those candidates. 

The proposed rule presents two 

alternative descriptions of a generic 

party reference. The first alternative 

would require the generic party 

reference to refer to the other candidates 

as candidates of a political party by 

using the name or nickname of the 

political party, such as ‘‘our wonderful 

Democratic team,’’ or ‘‘the great 

Republican ticket.’’ The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposed 

alternative. Under this approach, the 

generic reference must refer to 

candidates of a political party, rather 

than simply refer to a political party. 

For example, in the statement 

‘‘Candidate Y and the Republican 

Party,’’ the reference to the Republican 

Party would not be a generic reference 

to other Republican candidates and, 

therefore, would not be a hybrid 

communication. Should general 

references to party members without 

reference to their status as candidates, 

such as ‘‘the Democratic leaders’’ or 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
26572 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘Republicans in Congress,’’ be treated as 

generic party references under this 

alternative? Should an unambiguous 

reference to a political party that does 

not use the political party’s formal name 

also be a generic party reference? 

The second proposed alternative for 

11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(iii) would retain the 

language of current 11 CFR 106.8, which 

requires a generic reference to 

candidates without clearly identifying 

them, but does not require the 

candidates to be identified as candidates 

of a political party, or that the political 

party be clearly identified. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

second alternative. For example, should 

a reference to ‘‘Liberals in Congress’’ or 

‘‘Leaders in Congress’’ be treated as a 

generic party reference under this 

alternative? 

C. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(1)(iv) and 

(v)—Other Requirements 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8, like current 

11 CFR 106.8, would not apply to 

hybrid communications that solicit 

contributions, donations, or other funds. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether proposed section 

106.8(a)(1)(iv), containing the 

solicitation exemption, is necessary. 

Should the proposed rule apply to 

hybrid communications regardless of 

whether they contain a solicitation? 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8 would not 

apply to any hybrid communications 

where the costs are otherwise exempt 

from the definitions of ‘‘contribution’’

and ‘‘expenditure’’ under 11 CFR part 

100, subpart C or E. Disbursements that 

do not constitute ‘‘contributions’’ or 

‘‘expenditures’’ under 11 CFR part 100 

need not be attributed to any candidate 

in order to determine the permissibility 

of contributions or to report 

expenditures. The Commission seeks 

comment on this approach. 

D. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(2)—

Exclusion of Certain Multiple Candidate 

Hybrid Communications 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(2) would 

exclude from the proposed rule any 

hybrid communication made by a 

political party that refers to two or more 

clearly identified Federal candidates, 

other than candidates running for the 

same Federal office. For example, a 

communication that states ‘‘Vote for 

Senate Candidate X, House Candidate Y, 

and the rest of the great Party ticket’’

would not be covered by the proposed 

rule. The proposed rule would also 

exclude hybrid communications that 

refer to one or more clearly identified 

non-Federal candidates. These 

communication would remain subject to 

attribution solely between the 

candidates who are clearly identified in 

the public communication under 11 

CFR 106.1(a). The Commission seeks 

comment on this approach. 

A proposed alternative version of 11 

CFR 106.8(a)(2) would exclude from the 

proposed rule hybrid communications 

that refer to multiple clearly identified 

Federal candidates who are seeking 

different Federal offices, but are not 

candidates of the political party making 

the communication. The proposed 

alternative version would also exclude 

hybrid communications that refer to one 

or more clearly identified non-Federal 

candidates. These communications 

would remain subject to attribution 

solely between the candidates who are 

clearly identified in the public 

communication under 11 CFR 106.1(a). 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

approach. 

Under either approach, is attribution 

of excluded public communications 

pursuant to 106.1(a) appropriate? 

Should the Commission conclude that a 

generic party reference benefits a 

political party committee in only certain 

prescribed circumstances? 

E. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(3)—

Exclusion of Independent Expenditures 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a)(3) would 

exclude from the proposed rule any 

disbursement that is an independent 

expenditure under 11 CFR 100.16, even 

if such a communication contains a 

generic party reference. Under 11 CFR 

104.4 and 104.3(b)(3)(vii), the entire 

amount of such independent 

expenditures must be reported as either 

in support of, or in opposition to, a 

particular candidate, without regard to 

any generic reference to other 

candidates. Independent expenditures 

are not contributions to any candidate. 

Under 11 CFR part 300, such 

independent expenditures must be 

made entirely with Federal funds. 

III. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(b)—

Attribution 

Although current 11 CFR 106.8 

attributes a fixed 50 percent of the 

disbursements for a hybrid 

communication through a telephone 

bank to the Federal candidate clearly 

identified in the communication, the 

Commission is revisiting both the 

attribution method and the attribution 

percentage appropriate for all hybrid 

communications covered by the 

proposed rule. 

Consistent with the general rule that 

disbursements for a communication 

should be attributed to a candidate 

based on the benefit reasonably 

expected to be derived by that 

candidate, proposed 11 CFR 106.8(b) 

would attribute a disbursement for a 

hybrid communication between the 

political party making the hybrid 

communication and the political party’s 

own Federal candidate. 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(b) would 

attribute disbursements for hybrid 

communications as follows: 

• If the candidate of the political 

party making the communication is the 

only clearly identified Federal 

candidate in the hybrid communication, 

then the proposed rule would attribute 

the disbursements for the 

communication between the clearly 

identified Federal candidate and the 

political party making the 

communication. 

• If the only clearly identified Federal 

candidate in the hybrid communication 

is the opponent of the candidate of the 

political party making the 

communication, then the proposed rule 

would attribute the disbursements for 

the communication between the 

political party making the 

communication and the candidate of 

that political party who is running for 

the same Federal office as the clearly 

identified Federal candidate. 

• If the hybrid communication clearly 

identifies at least two Federal 

candidates running for the same Federal 

office, only one of whom is a candidate 

of the political party making the 

communication, then the proposed rule 

would attribute the disbursements for 

the communication between the 

political party making the 

communication and the clearly 

identified Federal candidate of that 

political party. 

Additionally, under the proposed 

multiple Federal candidate reference 

alternative: 

• If the hybrid communication clearly 

identifies at least two Federal 

candidates of the same political party 

running for different Federal offices, the 

proposed rule would attribute the 

disbursements for the communication 

among the political party making the 

communication and the clearly 

identified Federal candidates of that 

political party. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

this approach. Are there data or other 

evidence that support a down-ticket 

benefit from ads that reference a clearly 

identified candidate and also contain a 

generic reference? 

Hybrid communications that are made 

prior to a primary election and clearly 

identify a candidate of a political party 

other than the party making the 

communication present an additional 

issue, because the political party making 

the communication could have several 

of its own candidates seeking 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26573 

5Under § 106.6(f), the disbursements for a public 

communication are allocated between Federal and 

non-Federal accounts based solely on the 

candidates clearly identified in the communication, 

without regard to any generic party reference. See 

also Final Rules and Explanation and Justification 

Continued 

nomination for the same Federal office 

as the Federal candidate clearly 

identified in the communication. The 

Commission seeks comment on how the 

proposed rule should attribute 

disbursements between the political 

party making the communication and its 

various candidates seeking the political 

party’s nomination for the same Federal 

office as the candidate clearly identified 

in the communication. 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(b) presents 

three alternative attribution formulas: 

(1) A fixed percentage (proposed at 25 

percent, 50 percent, or 75 percent); (2) 

a fixed percentage of 100 percent, 

requiring the entire amount of each 

disbursement for the communication to 

be attributed to the Federal candidate of 

the political party making the 

communication; and (3) the greater of 

either a fixed percentage (proposed at 25 

percent, 50 percent, or 75 percent), or a 

percentage based on space or time 

attribution. The Commission seeks 

comment on these three alternative 

attribution formulas and whether a 

single formula should apply to all 

hybrid communications, regardless of 

the office sought by the Federal 

candidate who is clearly identified in 

the communication. Additionally, if the 

Commission were to adopt the proposed 

multiple Federal candidate reference 

alternative at proposed 11 CFR 

106.8(a)(1)(i)(C), what attribution 

formula or method would be most 

appropriate? 

The Commission also invites 

comment on whether there are other 

factors that the Commission should 

consider to be relevant to determining 

the relative benefit reasonably expected 

to be derived from the hybrid 

communication by a Federal candidate 

and by the political party making the 

communication. Must the hybrid 

communication be disseminated or 

distributed in the jurisdiction in which 

the clearly identified Federal candidate 

is running? Should different attribution 

percentages apply to House, Senate or 

Presidential candidates? Should a 

different attribution formula apply for 

publicly funded presidential 

candidates? Should a different fixed 

percentage apply if the clearly identified 

Federal candidate is in a highly 

contested race? Should a different fixed 

percentage apply for a presidential 

candidate if the hybrid communication 

is disseminated or distributed in a 

battleground state? Lastly, should the 

percentage attributed to the clearly 

identified Federal candidate change 

based on timing, i.e., the proximity to 

the election of the hybrid 

communication’s dissemination or 

distribution? 

A. Attribution Alternative 1—Fixed 

Percentage (Proposed at 25% or 50% or 

75%) 

Attribution Alternative 1 would 

require a fixed percentage of the 

disbursements for a public 

communication to be attributed to the 

Federal candidate of the political party 

making the communication. This 

candidate would be either clearly 

identified in the public communication, 

or (in the case of negative 

advertisements) a candidate for the 

same Federal office as the only Federal 

candidate clearly identified in the 

public communication. The remaining 

percentage of the disbursements would 

not be attributable to any other Federal 

or non-Federal candidate and could be 

treated as political party committee 

operating expenses. 

Attribution Alternative 1 is based on 

current 11 CFR 106.8, which requires 50 

percent of the disbursements for hybrid 

communications made via telephone 

banks to be attributed to the clearly 

identified Federal candidate and 

prohibits the remaining 50 percent of 

the disbursements from being attributed 

to any other Federal or non-Federal 

candidate. Attribution Alternative 1 

proposes three alternative percentages: 

(1) 25 percent, (2) 50 percent, and (3) 75 

percent, as discussed below. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

Attribution Alternative 1, including 

which, if any, of the three alternative 

percentages should be adopted, or 

whether a different fixed percentage 

should be adopted. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether the 

percentage should be fixed or a 

minimum. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the attribution 

percentages should differ depending on 

the type of public communication or on 

other factors. In addition to opinion and 

suggestion, the Commission invites the 

submission of empirical evidence and 

other analysis that would justify the use 

of a particular percentage method. 

1. 25 Percent 

The first alternative would require 

that 25 percent of the disbursements for 

a public communication be attributed to 

the Federal candidate of the political 

party making the public 

communication, with the remaining 75 

percent of the disbursements not 

attributed to any other Federal or nonFederal candidate. This alternative is 

based on the proposition that the 

Federal candidate of the political party 

making the public communication 

could reasonably expect to derive 

significantly less benefit from the 

communication than the political party 

making the communication. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

alternative. 

2. 50 Percent 

The second alternative, like current 

11 CFR 106.8, would require 50 percent 

of the disbursements for a public 

communication to be attributed to the 

Federal candidate of the political party 

making the communication, with the 

remaining 50 percent of the 

disbursements not attributed to any 

other Federal or non-Federal candidate. 

This alternative is based on the 

proposition that the Federal candidate 

of the political party making the public 

communication could reasonably expect 

to derive roughly the same benefit from 

the communication as the political party 

making the communication. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

alternative. 

3. 75 Percent 

Under the third alternative, 75 

percent of the disbursements for a 

public communication would be 

attributed to the Federal candidate of 

the political party making the 

communication, and the remaining 25 

percent of the disbursements would not 

be attributable to any other Federal or 

non-Federal candidate. This alterative is 

based on the proposition that the 

Federal candidate of the political party 

making the communication could 

reasonably expect to derive the most 

benefit from a public communication, 

while recognizing that a generic party 

reference does provide some benefit to 

the political party making the 

communication. The Commission seeks 

comment on this alternative. 

B. Attribution Alternative 2—Fixed 

Percentage (100%) 

Under Attribution Alternative 2, all of 

the disbursements for a public 

communication would be attributed to 

the Federal candidate of the political 

party making the communication. This 

candidate would be either clearly 

identified in the public communication, 

or a candidate for the same Federal 

office as the only Federal candidate 

clearly identified in the public 

communication. This alternative would 

be similar to the allocation rules for 

separate segregated funds and 

nonconnected committees in 11 CFR 

106.6(f).5 This alternative is based on 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
26574 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

for Political Committee Status, Definition of 

Contribution, and Allocation for Separate 

Segregated Funds and Nonconnected Committees, 

69 FR 68056, 68063 (Nov. 23, 2004). 

the proposition that a generic party 

reference could be reasonably expected 

to provide at most an insignificant 

benefit to the political party making the 

public communication, and that the 

Federal candidate of the political party 

making the communication could 

reasonably expect to derive all of the 

benefit from the communication. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

Attribution Alternative 2. In 2003, the 

Commission did not adopt a 100% 

candidate attribution alternative for 

phone bank communications. Does 

evidence or experience indicate that the 

Commission should reconsider this 

conclusion? 

C. Attribution Alternative 3—The 

Greater of a Fixed Percentage (Proposed 

at 25% or 50% or 75%) or a Space or 

Time Attribution 

Attribution Alternative 3 would 

require the disbursements for a public 

communication to be attributed to the 

Federal candidate of the political party 

making the communication who is 

either clearly identified in the public 

communication or a candidate for the 

same Federal office as the only Federal 

candidate clearly identified in the 

public communication, based on either 

a given attribution percentage, or based 

on a space or time attribution 

percentage, whichever is greater. The 

space or time attribution percentage 

would be calculated as a ratio of the 

public communication’s space or time 

devoted to all clearly identified Federal 

candidates compared to the 

communication’s space or time devoted 

to all clearly identified Federal 

candidates and all generic party 

references. The disbursements not 

attributed to the Federal candidate of 

the political party paying for the 

communication would not be attributed 

to any other Federal or non-Federal 

candidate. 

Attribution Alternative 3 is based on 

the attribution formula in Advisory 

Opinion 2006–11 (Washington 

Democratic State Central Committee). In 

Advisory Opinion 2006–11, the 

Commission concluded that at least 50 

percent of the disbursements for the 

mass mailing must be attributed to the 

clearly identified Federal candidate, 

even if the space attributable to that 

candidate is less than the space 

attributable to the generically referenced 

candidates. However, the Commission 

concluded that if the amount of space in 

the mailing devoted to the clearly 

identified Federal candidate exceeds the 

space devoted to the generically 

referenced candidates, then the 

disbursements attributed to the clearly 

identified Federal candidate must 

exceed 50 percent and ‘‘reflect at least 

the relative proportion of the space 

devoted to that candidate,’’ similar to 

the space or time attribution under 11 

CFR 106.1(a). Although the Commission 

determined that 50 percent was the 

minimum percentage to be attributed to 

the clearly identified Federal candidate 

under the facts of Advisory Opinion 

2006–11, Attribution Alternative 3 

presents three alternative minimum 

percentages: (1) 25 percent, (2) 50 

percent, and (3) 75 percent. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

Attribution Alternative 3, including 

which, if any, of the alternative 

minimum percentages should apply to 

all types of ‘‘public communication,’’ or 

whether the minimum percentage 

should depend on the specific type of 

public communication. The 

Commission invites comment on 

whether a space or time attribution, or 

some other method of attribution, is 

appropriate for all types of public 

communication. The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether the space or 

time devoted to a clearly identified 

Federal candidate in any general or 

‘‘stand by your ad’’ disclaimer required 

by the Act and Commission regulations 

should be considered when calculating 

a space or time analysis under 

Attribution Alternative 3. See 2 U.S.C. 

441d(a) and 11 CFR 110.11(a)(1), (b)(1) 

and (2) (general disclaimer 

requirement); see also 2 U.S.C. 441d(d) 

and 11 CFR 110.11(c)(3) (the ‘‘stand-byyour-ad’’ provisions). 

IV. Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(c)—

Treatment 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(c) would 

permit a political party making a hybrid 

communication to treat disbursements 

attributed to a Federal candidate under 

proposed 11 CFR 106.8(b) as an in-kind 

contribution to that candidate subject to 

the limitations of 11 CFR 110.1 and 

110.2 or a party coordinated 

expenditure on behalf of that candidate 

under 11 CFR part 109, subpart D. 

Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(c) would also 

allow the Federal candidate or the 

candidate’s authorized committee to 

reimburse the political party for the 

costs attributed to the candidate. The 

Commission notes that such a 

reimbursement would have to be made 

within a reasonable time. See, e.g., 

Advisory Opinion 2004–37 (Waters) 

(reimbursement by Federal candidates’

authorized committees for 

disbursements for a printed 

communication would not constitute a 

contribution to another Federal 

candidate’s authorized committee if the 

reimbursements were made within a 

‘‘reasonable time’’). The Commission 

invites comment on whether the 

proposed rule should require 

prepayment of shared hybrid 

communication costs, or whether it 

should include a time limit for 

reimbursement, such as 30 or 60 days, 

or some other time period. 

The Commission notes that the 

proposed rule would permit a hybrid 

communication that is coordinated with 

a Federal candidate to be treated as a 

combination of an in-kind contribution, 

a party coordinated expenditure, and/or 

a reimbursement. The Commission 

seeks comment on this approach and 

the general treatment of these 

disbursements under the proposed rule. 

V. Alternative Proposal—Amend 11 

CFR 106.1 

As an alternative to adopting 

proposed 11 CFR 106.8, should the 

Commission instead amend 11 CFR 

106.1 to also include expenditures that 

contain generic party references, and 

require that such expenditures be 

attributed (1) to each clearly identified 

Federal candidate and political party 

according to the benefit each may 

reasonably expect to derive, or (2) 

according to a ratio based on the 

number of candidates referenced, 

including the generic party reference? 

For example, under the latter 

alternative, a communication 

encouraging viewers to support 

‘‘Senator Smith, Representative Jones, 

and all the great candidates of the 

Democratic Party’’ would be attributed 

equally between the three references 

(i.e., one-third to Smith, one-third to 

Jones, and one-third to the political 

party making the communication). The 

Commission seeks comment on all 

aspects of this alternative. 

Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) (Regulatory Flexibility 

Act) 

The Commission certifies that the 

attached proposed rule would not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The basis for 

this certification is that any individuals 

and not-for-profit entities that would be 

affected by the proposed rule are not 

‘‘small entities’’ under 5 U.S.C. 601. The 

definition of ‘‘small entity’’ does not 

include individuals, but classifies a notfor-profit enterprise as a ‘‘small 

organization’’ if it is independently 

owned and operated and not dominant 

in its field. 5 U.S.C. 601(4). The 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 26575 

proposed rule would affect political 

party committees, including national, 

State, district, and local party 

committees, and other organizations of 

a political party, which are not 

independently owned and operated 

because they are not financed and 

controlled by a small identifiable group 

of individuals. Political party 

committees are financed by 

contributions from a large number of 

individuals and are controlled by the 

political party officials and political 

party employees and volunteers. In 

addition, the political party committees 

and organizations representing the 

Democratic and Republican parties have 

a major controlling influence within the 

national, State, and local political 

arenas and are thus dominant in their 

field. District and local party 

committees, and other organizations of 

a political party that are considered 

affiliated with the State committees 

need not be considered separately. To 

the extent that any political party 

committees might be considered ‘‘small 

organizations,’’ the number that would 

be affected by this proposed rule is not 

substantial. Therefore, the attached 

proposed rule, if promulgated, would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

List of Subjects in 11 CFR Part 106 

Campaign funds, Political committees 

and parties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

PART 106—ALLOCATIONS OF 

CANDIDATE AND COMMITTEE 

ACTIVITIES 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Federal Election 

Commission proposes to amend 

Subchapter A of Chapter I of Title 11 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

1. The authority citation for part 106 

would continue to read as follows: 

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 438(a)(8), 441a(b), 

441a(g). 

2. Section 106.8 would be revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 106.8 Attribution of expenses for 

political party committee hybrid 

communications. 

(a) Scope and definition. (1) This 

section applies to any public 

communication, as defined in 11 CFR 

100.26, made by a national, State, 

district, or local committee or 

organization of a political party, that—

Paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii)—Alternative 

1 (Candidate References) 

(i) Refers to either: 

(A) Only one clearly identified 

Federal candidate; or 

(B) Two or more clearly identified 

Federal candidates for the same Federal 

office, only one of whom is the 

candidate of the political party making 

the public communication; 

(ii) Does not refer to any other clearly 

identified Federal or non-Federal 

candidate; 

Paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii)—Alternative 

2 (Multiple Federal Candidate 

Reference) 

(i) Refers to either: 

(A) Only one clearly identified 

Federal candidate; 

(B) Two or more clearly identified 

Federal candidates for the same Federal 

office, only one of whom is the 

candidate of the political party making 

the public communication; or 

(C) Two or more clearly identified 

Federal candidates for different Federal 

offices, all of whom are candidates of 

the political party making the public 

communication. 

(ii) Does not refer to any other clearly 

identified Federal or non-Federal 

candidate; 

Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)—Alternative 1 

(Generic Party Reference) 

(iii) Generically refers to other Federal 

or non-Federal candidates of a political 

party by using the name or nickname of 

the political party, but without clearly 

identifying the candidates; 

Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)—Alternative 2 

(Generic Party Reference) 

(iii) Generically refers to other Federal 

or non-Federal candidates without 

clearly identifying the candidates; 

(iv) Does not solicit a contribution, 

donation, or any other funds from any 

person; and 

(v) Is not exempt from the definition 

of contribution or expenditure under 11 

CFR part 100, subpart C or E. 

Paragraph (a)(2)—Alternative 1 

(Certain Hybrid Communications 

Excluded) 

(2) This section does not apply to a 

public communication that refers to two 

or more clearly identified Federal 

candidates for different Federal offices, 

or one or more clearly identified nonFederal candidates, and generically 

refers to other Federal or non-Federal 

candidates as described in paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section. Disbursements 

for such public communications must 

be attributed solely to the clearly 

identified candidates under 11 CFR 

106.1(a). 

Paragraph (a)(2)—Alternative 2 

(Certain Hybrid Communications 

Excluded) 

(2) This section does not apply to a 

public communication that refers to two 

or more clearly identified Federal 

candidates for different Federal offices 

who are not candidates of the political 

party making the communication, or to 

one or more clearly identified nonFederal candidates, and generically 

refers to other Federal or non-Federal 

candidates as described in paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section. Disbursements 

for such public communications must 

be attributed solely to the clearly 

identified candidates under 11 CFR 

106.1(a). 

(3) This section does not apply to 

independent expenditures, as defined in 

11 CFR 100.16, for a public 

communication described in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. Under 11 CFR 

104.4 and 104.3(b)(3)(vii), the entire 

amount of such independent 

expenditures must be reported as either 

in support of, or in opposition to, a 

particular candidate, without regard to 

the generic reference to other 

candidates. Under 11 CFR part 300, 

such independent expenditures must be 

made entirely with Federal funds. 

Paragraph (b)—Alternative 1 (Fixed 

Percentage (25% or 50% or 75%) 

Attribution) 

(b) Attribution. Each disbursement for 

a public communication described in 

paragraph (a) of this section must be 

made entirely with Federal funds and 

must be attributed as follows: 

(1) 25 or 50 or 75 percent of the 

disbursement is attributed to the Federal 

candidate of the political party making 

the public communication who is 

either: 

(i) Clearly identified in the public 

communication; or 

(ii) A candidate for the same Federal 

office as the only Federal candidate 

clearly identified in the public 

communication. 

(2) The portion of each disbursement 

not attributed to the Federal candidate 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section is not attributable to any other 

Federal or non-Federal candidate. 

Paragraph (b)—Alternative 2 (Fixed 

Percentage (100%) Attribution) 

(b) Attribution. The entire amount of 

each disbursement for a public 

communication described in paragraph 

(a) of this section must be attributed to 

the Federal candidate of the political 

party making the public communication 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
26576 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

who is either clearly identified in the 

public communication or a candidate 

for the same Federal office as the only 

Federal candidate clearly identified in 

the public communication, and must be 

made entirely with Federal funds. 

Paragraph (b)—Alternative 3 (The 

Greater of a Fixed Percentage or a 

Space or Time Attribution) 

(b) Attribution. Each disbursement for 

a public communication described in 

paragraph (a) of this section must be 

made entirely with Federal funds and 

must be attributed as follows: 

(1) Each disbursement must be 

attributed to the Federal candidate of 

the political party making the public 

communication who is either clearly 

identified in the public communication 

or a candidate for the same Federal 

office as the only Federal candidate 

clearly identified in the public 

communication, based on the 

proportion of the space or time, or 

number of questions or statements, 

devoted to all clearly identified Federal 

candidates as compared to the total 

space or time, or number of questions or 

statements, devoted to all clearly 

identified Federal candidates and all 

generic references to other candidates, 

but at least 25 or 50 or 75 percent of 

each disbursement must be attributed to 

the Federal candidate of the political 

party making the public 

communication; and 

(2) The portion of each disbursement 

not attributed to the Federal candidate 

described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section is not attributable to any other 

Federal or non-Federal candidate. 

(c) Treatment of disbursements. The 

disbursement described in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section may be one or a 

combination of the following: 

(1) An in-kind contribution, subject to 

the limitations of 11 CFR 110.1 or 110.2; 

(2) A party coordinated expenditure, 

subject to the limitations, restrictions, 

and requirements of 11 CFR part 109, 

subpart D; or 

(3) Reimbursed by the Federal 

candidate described in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section or the authorized 

committee of such candidate. 

Dated: May 3, 2007. 

Robert D. Lenhard, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–8956 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–156779–06] 

RIN 1545–BG27 

Determining the Amount of Taxes Paid 

for Purposes of Section 901; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

correction to notice of proposed 

rulemaking that was published in the 

Federal Register on Friday, March 30, 

2007 (71 FR 15081) providing guidance 

relating to the determination of the 

amount of taxes paid for purposes of 

section 901. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bethany A. Ingwalson, (202) 622–3850 

(not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

(REG–156779–06) that is the subject of 

this correction is under section 901 of 

the Internal Revenue Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–156779–06) contains 

an error that may prove to be misleading 

and is in need of clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–156779–06), that was 

the subject of FR Doc. E7–5862, is 

corrected as follows: 

On page 15085, column 3, in the 

preamble, first full paragraph of the 

column, under the paragraph heading 

‘‘3. Comments and Proposed 

Regulations’’, lines 1 and 2, the 

language ‘‘The fifth condition is that the 

counterparty is a person (other than 

the’’ is corrected to read ‘‘The fifth 

condition is that the arrangement 

involves a counterparty. A counterparty 

is a person (other than the’’. 

LaNita Van Dyke, 

Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations 

Branch, Legal Processing Division, Office of 

Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and 

Administration). 

[FR Doc. E7–8942 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

32 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. USA–2007–0017] 

RIN 0702–AA57 

Recruiting and Enlistments 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army 

has revised its regulation that prescribes 

policies and procedures concerning 

recruiting and enlistment into the 

Regular Army and Reserve Components. 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by July 9, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 32 CFR Part 571, Docket 

No. USA–2007–0017 and or RIN 0702–

AA57, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

Federal Register document. The general 

policy for comments and other 

submissions from members of the public 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Tench, (703) 695–7520. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The Administrative Procedure Act, as 

amended by the Freedom of Information 

Act, requires publication of certain 

policies and procedures and other 

information concerning the Department 

of the Army in the Federal Register. The 

policies and procedures covered by this 

part fall into that category. The Army 

has changed the publications and 

policies, thus requiring the rules in the 

Federal Register to be updated. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Army has 

determined that the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act does not apply because 

the proposed rule does not have a 

significant economic impact on a 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS