66936 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

decision in this proceeding, Department

employees involved in the decisional

process are prohibited from discussing

the merits of the hearing issues on an ex

parte basis with any person having an

interest in the proceeding. The

prohibition applies to employees in the

following organizational units: Office of

the Secretary of Agriculture; Office of

the Administrator, AMS; Office of the

General Counsel; and the Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS.

Procedural matters are not subject to

the above prohibition and may be

discussed at any time.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 927

Marketing agreements, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Winter

pears.

PART 927—WINTER PEARS GROWN

IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 927 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Testimony is invited on the

following proposals or appropriate

alternatives or modifications to such

proposals.

Proposals submitted by the Winter

Pear Control Committee:

Proposal No. 1

Amend § 927.51 by adding a new

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

§ 927.51 Issuance of regulations; and

modification suspension, or termination

thereof.

(a) * * *

(3) Fix the size, capacity, weight,

dimensions, markings, or pack of the

container, or containers, which may be

used in packaging or handling of pears.

* * * * *

Revise § 927.5 to read as follows:

§ 927.5 Size

Size means the number of pears

which can be packed in a standard pear

box when packed in accordance with

the packing requirements of the U.S.

Standards for Pears (part 51 of this title),

or as such standards hereafter may be

modified or as ‘‘size’’ may be more

specifically defined in a regulation

issued under this part.

Proposal No. 2

Revise § 927.28 to read as follows:

§ 927.28 Alternates for members of the

Control Committee.

The first alternate for a member shall

act in the place and stead of the member

for whom he/she is an alternate during

such member’s absence. In the event of

the death, removal, resignation, or

disqualification of a member, his or her

first alternate shall act as a member

until a successor for the member is

selected and has qualified. The second

alternate for a member shall serve in the

place and stead of the member for

whom he/she is an alternate whenever

both the member and his/her first

alternate are unable to serve. In the

event that both a member of the Control

Committee and that member’s alternates

are unable to attend a Control

Committee meeting, the member or the

Control Committee may designate any

other alternate member from the same

district and group (handler or grower) to

serve in that member’s place and stead.

Proposal No. 3

Amend § 927.51 by revising paragraph

(a)(1) to read as follows:

927.51 Issuance of regulations; and

modification suspension, or termination

thereof.

(a) * * *

(1) May limit the total quantity of any

grade, size, quality, maturity, or

combination thereof, of any variety of

pears grown in any district and may

prescribe different requirements

applicable to shipments to different

export markets; or

* * * * *

The Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

Agricultural Marketing Service,

submitted the following proposal:

Proposal No. 4

Make such changes as may be

necessary to the order to conform with

any amendment thereto that may result

from the hearing.

Dated: November 2, 2000.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Associate Administrator, Agricultural

Marketing Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28659 Filed 11–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–U

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Parts 100, 102 and 104

[Notice 2000–19]

Rulemaking Petition: Reporting by

Political Action Committees Notice of

Disposition

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Disposition of Petition

for Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission announces

its disposition of a Petition for

Rulemaking filed on September 20, 1999

by the Project on Government Oversight

(‘‘POGO’’). The Petition urged the

Commission to revise various rules

concerning reports filed by political

action committees (‘‘PACs’’). The

Commission has decided not to initiate

a rulemaking in response to the Petition

at this time. The Petition is available for

inspection in the Commission’s Public

Records Office, through its FAXLINE

service, and on its website,

www.FEC.gov.

DATES: November 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosemary C. Smith, Assistant General

Counsel, or Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Attorney,

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC

20463, (202) 694–1650 or (800) 424–

9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 20, 1999, the Commission

received a Petition for Rulemaking from

POGO. The Petition urged the

Commission to take six actions with

regard to reports filed by PACs by

revising various sections in 11 CFR

parts 100, 102, and 104.

The Commission published a Notice

of Availability (‘‘NOA’’) on the Petition

on October 13, 1999, 64 FR 55440. The

NOA stated that several of the

recommended actions address

Commission internal procedures that

are not properly the subject of

rulemaking. Therefore, the Commission

sought comments only on the four

suggested actions that can be addressed

through rulemaking.

The Commission received twenty-one

timely comments and four late

comments in response to the NOA from

twenty-four commenters. Detailed

comments were submitted by

Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney;

Democracy Advocate, U.S. Public

Interest Research Group; Money and

Politics Iowa; Institute for Social Justice;

University of Maryland Department of

Government and Politics; Michigan

Citizen Action; Ohio Citizen Action;

Common Cause; Center for Responsive

Government; University of Akron’s Ray

C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics;

and Project on Government Oversight.

In addition to these comments, the

Commission received comments

expressing general support for the

Petition from two individuals and

substantially similar comments from

eleven commenters including Colby

College, Illinois Legislative Studies

Center Sunshine Project, and

Government Accountability Project. On

November 2, 2000, the Commission

voted to decline to open a new

rulemaking in response to the Petition at

this time for reasons stated below.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66937

1The Petition’s first recommendation actually

contained two separate recommendations—first, to

compare PAC disbursements with candidate

receipts and second, to require PACs to list soft

money accounts as affiliated organizations. The

second recommendation was included among the

list of recommendations on which the Commission

sought comments in the NOA.

A. Issues on Which Comments Were

Sought in the NOA

In the NOA, the Commission

identified four recommendations in the

Petition that were appropriate for

rulemaking and sought comments on

these recommendations. The issues on

which comments are sought include (1)

revising 11 CFR 100.6 to require PACs

to list, as an affiliated organization on

their Statement of Organization, any soft

money account to which they forward

checks; (2) revising 11 CFR 102.9(a)(3)

to require candidates who receive PAC

contributions to maintain records that

list each PAC’s full name and

Commission identification number, and

revising 11 CFR 100.12 to require them

to include this information on their FEC

reports; (3) revising 11 CFR 104.8(d)(4)

to require PACs to notify the

Commission within ten days of

receiving a returned contribution; and

(4) revising 104.13(a)(2) to require PACs

to notify candidates within ten days of

any in-kind contribution.

All of the commenters expressed

support for the Petition and encouraged

the Commission to adopt all six of

POGO’s recommendations through

rulemaking. The commenters who

submitted the substantially similar

comments stated that the Commission

should initiate a new rulemaking project

to correct problems with reporting by

PACs because ‘‘proper disclosure is at

the core of what the Commission should

be doing, making these reforms vital to

the continued integrity of the FEC.’’

Other commenters characterized the

recommendations as ‘‘common-sense,’’

‘‘simple bookkeeping procedures,’’

‘‘minor,’’ or ‘‘technical’’, that would

improve the Commission’s operations

and the reporting and disclosure

procedures resulting in more accurate

information. Three commenters also

supported these recommendations

because they would make campaign

finance information more

understandable to the public. Three

commenters made detailed comments

on one specific recommendation. Their

comments are discussed below.

1. Soft Money Accounts

The Petition suggested that the

Commission amend section 100.6 to

require ‘‘federal PACs [to] list as an

affiliated organization on their

statement of organization or amendment

thereto, any soft money account(s) to

which it forwards checks.’’ The

Commission has concluded that it

would be more appropriate to address

this issue, if at all, in the context of the

soft money rulemaking project rather

than in a separate rulemaking project.

2. Eliminate Irregular PAC Names

The Petition recommended that the

FEC require PACs and political

committees to use the PACs’ full names

and PAC FEC identification numbers

when making, receiving, or reporting

PAC contributions. POGO pointed to the

FEC’s PACRONYMS publication, a

guide to PAC names, as illustrative of

the need for use of uniform names. The

Petition suggested that amendments to

sections 102.9(a)(3), 102.10, and 100.12

would achieve this result. The

Commission has amended its forms and

electronic filing software to allow all

political committees to include the

names and FEC identification numbers

of political committees on Schedule A

on a voluntary basis.

3. Candidates Report Returned

Contributions

The Petition urged the Commission to

amend section 104.8(d)(4) to require

PACs to notify the Commission of a

returned contribution within ten days of

the PAC’s receipt of the returned

contribution. Three commenters

included comments specific to this

recommendation. They expressed

concerns about the impact of the lack of

such notice on candidates who refuse to

accept PAC contributions. The

commenters argued that these

candidates may be unfairly challenged

by the press or the public on their

assertions that they do not accept PAC

contributions if a PAC reports making a

contribution but does not report in a

more timely manner that the

contribution was returned.

Generally, the Federal Election

Campaign Act (‘‘FECA’’) requires

unauthorized committees to file their

reports to the Commission on a monthly

basis, or on a quarterly basis during an

election year, and on a semi-annual

basis during a non-election year. See 2

U.S.C. 434(a)(4), 11 CFR 104.5(c).

Nothing in the FECA requires

unauthorized committees to report

returned contributions within ten days

of receipt. Therefore, an amendment to

the FECA would be necessary before the

Commission could amend its rules to

require reporting returned contributions

within ten days.

4. Notify Candidates of All ‘‘In-Kind’’

Contributions

The Petition suggested that the

Commission amend section 104.13(a)(2)

to require PACs to notify candidates of

all ‘‘in-kind’’ services provided to the

candidate within ten days of providing

the services. Nothing in the FECA

requires unauthorized committees to

notify candidates when they make inkind contributions. Consequently, a

statutory amendment would be needed

before the Commission could impose a

new ten day reporting requirement on

unauthorized committees.

B. Issues Not Appropriate for

Rulemaking

The Petition also contains three

recommendations that the Commission

concluded could not be implemented

through rulemaking.1 See NOA, 64 FR

55440 (October 13, 1999). Further

discussion of these recommendations

follows below.

1. Compare PAC Disbursements With

Candidate Receipts

The Petition recommended that the

FEC compare PAC disbursements with

candidate receipts and adopt procedural

steps to trigger Requests for Additional

Information (‘‘RFAI’’) if there are

discrepancies above a certain dollar

amount. While the Commission

recognizes the POGO’s concerns, this

recommendation goes to internal

procedures and is not an appropriate

subject for rulemaking.

2. Group FEC Data by Two and Six-year

Campaign Cycles

The Petition recommended that the

FEC’s system in the Public Record

Office and on the Internet allow users to

list contributions by individuals and

PACs on an election-cycle basis. The

recent amendment to FECA contained

in the Treasury and General

Government Appropriations Act, 2000,

Public Law 106–58, 106th Cong.,

Section 640, 113 Stat. 430 (1999),

mandating election-cycle reporting

provided the authorization for the

Commission to amend its regulations to

implement election-cycle reporting. The

Commission has published final rules at

11 CFR part 104, 65 FR 42619 (July 11,

2000), and has revised its forms to

implement election-cycle reporting for

authorized committees. See id. at

42620–42623 (Explanation and

Justification of the final rules for

Election Cycle Reporting by Authorized

Committees). It is also in the process of

converting to election-cycle reporting,

which should allow retrieval of

information on an election-cycle basis.

3. Eliminate Duplicate Entries

POGO stated that its report

highlighted the problem of duplicate

66938 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 8, 2000 / Proposed Rules

entries in the Commission’s databases.

To address this problem, the Petition

suggested that the Commission’s

systems identify transactions that

appear to be duplicates and that the

Reports Analysis Division send out

request for additional information

notices to clarify the duplication. As

stated above, the Commission’s internal

procedures, including RFAI notices, are

not an appropriate subject for

rulemaking. However, the Commission

notes that the upcoming expansion of its

electronic filing program may eliminate

many duplicate entries.

C. Additional Issues Not Included in

the Petition

Two commenters included three

additional suggestions in their

comments on the Petition. They are: (1)

Implement better enforcement tools

such as random audits, the publication

of a list of committees who file

incomplete reports, and a schedule of

fees for non-compliance; (2) require

electronic filing for all committees; and

(3) require Senate candidates to file

reports directly with the FEC. One of

these commenters also added another

recommendation requiring multicandidate entities to issue separate

checks to each separate recipient.

Because these suggestions are beyond

the scope of the Petition for

Rulemaking, the Commission will not

initiate a new rulemaking project in

response to these additional

recommendations. In addition, some of

the suggestions, such as random audits,

are beyond the Commission’s statutory

authority.

However, the Commission has

implemented or is about to implement

new programs and procedures since the

publication of the NOA that address

several of these issues. The new

Administrative Fines program, 65 FR

31787 (May 19, 2000) ( to be codified at

11 CFR part 111, subpart B), that went

into effect in July, 2000, will assess civil

money penalties in accordance with the

schedules of penalties on political

committees who fail to file their reports

in a timely manner. The Commission

will also require political committees

whose annual contributions or

expenditures exceed or are expected to

exceed $50,000 to file their reports

electronically beginning in January,

2001. 65 FR 38415 (June 21, 2000) (to

be codified at 11 CFR 104.18). However,

electronic filing cannot be extended to

all political committees absent further

amendments to the FECA. A legislative

change would also be needed for

senatorial candidates to file directly

with the FEC. However, the Secretary of

the Senate has automated the transfer of

information from the Senate Public

Records’ Office to the FEC and the

information can be viewed in electronic

form on the Commission’s website at

www.FEC.gov.

While the Commission has decided

not to initiate a new rulemaking in

response to this petition, changes the

Commission is making to its operations,

computer systems, forms, and

regulations, as described above, will

further POGO’s goal of enhancing timely

and accurate dissemination of campaign

finance information to the public.

Accordingly, no further action on the

Petition for Rulemaking will be taken at

this time. See 11 CFR 200.4.

Dated: November 2, 2000.

Darryl R. Wold,

Chairman, Federal Election Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–28601 Filed 11–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

13 CFR Part 124

8(a) Business Development/Small

Disadvantaged Business Status

Determinations

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In order to make the award of

contracts under the 8(a) Business

Development program a more attractive

procurement alternative in today’s

streamlined Federal Government

procurement environment, the Small

Business Administration (SBA)

proposes to amend its current 8(a)

regulations to permit SBA to delegate to

procuring agencies its authority to

accept requirements for the 8(a)

program.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Linda Williams,

Associate Administrator for Policy,

Planning, and Liaison, 409 Third Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Delorice Ford, Associate Administrator

for 8(a) Business Development, at (202)

205–6416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Streamlining Act of 1994

dramatically changed the way the

Federal Government buys its goods and

services. In today’s changing

procurement environment, there are

increasingly larger contract

opportunities that often are not suitable

for small businesses to perform as prime

contractors. Agencies are also using

streamlined procurement practices such

as multiple award contracts,

Government-Wide Acquisition

Contracts (GWACs), Federal supply

schedules, and credit card purchases. At

the same time, the 8(a) Business

Development (BD) program contract

mechanisms have not been modernized

to successfully link-up with the

acquisition vehicles authorized by

procurement reform. The impact is

fewer contract opportunities for 8(a)

Program Participants.

In order to make the award of

contracts under the 8(a) BD program a

more attractive procurement alternative

and to strengthen the effectiveness of

the 8(a) BD program, SBA proposes to

make the offer and acceptance of

requirements for award through the 8(a)

BD program simpler and faster.

Specifically, SBA proposes to amend its

current 8(a) regulations to permit SBA

to delegate to procuring agencies its

authority to accept requirements for the

8(a) program. This change would reduce

the administrative burden on procuring

agencies and allow SBA to refocus its

efforts on providing business

development, including contract

assistance, to Program Participants. SBA

believes that this change would make

the 8(a) program more attractive by

reducing the 8(a) procurement leadtime

by up to twelve days.

SBA would continue to determine

eligibility for the award of 8(a)

contracts, but would do so on an annual

rather than on a contract-by-contract

basis. SBA would maintain the listing of

firms that are eligible for the award of

8(a) contracts in PRO-Net. In addition,

SBA would require Program

Participants to notify SBA of any

changes in ownership, control, social

disadvantage or economic disadvantage

in order to ensure that PRO-Net is kept

current regarding any firm’s continued

eligibility for 8(a) awards. A procuring

agency could accept SBA’s PRO-Net

designation and accept a specific 8(a)

requirement on behalf of a Program

Participant so determined to be eligible.

By delegating its authority to accept

requirements for award through the 8(a)

program to procuring activities, SBA

could better meet the business

development aspects of the 8(a) BD

program and would be in a better

position to comply with a recent

recommendation in the July 2000

General Accounting Office (GAO) report

titled, SBA Could Better Focus its 8(a)

Program to Help Firms Obtain Contracts

(GAO/RCED–00–196). GAO

recommended that SBA work with its

district offices to place priority on

helping inform Program Participants

about contracting opportunities,