19024 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Excess funds may be used 

temporarily by the Board to defray 

expenses of the subsequent marketing 

year provided each handler’s share of 

such excess shall be made available to 

him or her by the Board within five 

months after the end of the year. 

(3) The Board may carry over such 

excess into subsequent marketing years 

as a reserve: Provided, that funds 

already in reserve do not exceed 

approximately two years’ budgeted 

expenses. In the event that funds exceed 

two marketing years’ budgeted 

expenses, future assessments will be 

reduced to bring the reserves to an 

amount that is less than or equal to two 

marketing years’ budgeted expenses. 

Such reserve funds may be used: 

(i) To defray expenses, during any 

marketing year, prior to the time 

assessment income is sufficient to cover 

such expenses; 

(ii) To cover deficits incurred during 

any year when assessment income is 

less than expenses; 

(iii) To defray expenses incurred 

during any period when any or all 

provisions of this part are suspended; 

and 

(iv) To meet any other such costs 

recommended by the Board and 

approved by the Secretary. 

(e) Advanced assessments and 

commercial loans. To provide funds for 

the administration of the provisions of 

this part during the part of a fiscal 

period when neither sufficient operating 

reserve funds nor sufficient revenue 

from assessments on the current 

season’s certifications are available, the 

Board may accept payment of 

assessments in advance or may borrow 

money from a commercial lending 

institution for such purposes. 

(f) Termination. Any money collected 

from assessments hereunder and 

remaining unexpended in the 

possession of the Board upon 

termination of this part shall be 

distributed in such manner as the 

Secretary may direct. 

■ 18. Section 984.77 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 984.77 Verification of reports. 

For the purpose of verifying and 

checking reports filed by handlers or the 

operations of handlers, the Secretary 

and the Board through its duly 

authorized representatives shall have 

access to any premises where walnuts 

and walnut records are held. Such 

access shall be available at any time 

during reasonable business hours. 

Authorized representatives shall be 

permitted to inspect any walnuts held 

and any and all records of the handler 

with respect to matters within the 

purview of this part. Each handler shall 

maintain complete records on the 

receiving, holding, and disposition of 

both inshell and shelled walnuts. Each 

handler shall furnish all labor necessary 

to facilitate such inspections at no 

expense to the Board or the Secretary. 

Each handler shall store all walnuts 

held by him or her in such manner as 

to facilitate inspection and shall 

maintain adequate storage records, 

which will permit accurate 

identification of respective lots and of 

all such walnuts held or disposed of 

theretofore. The Board, with the 

approval of the Secretary, may establish 

any methods and procedures needed to 

verify reports. 

■ 19. Section 984.347 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 984.347 Assessment rate. 

An assessment rate shall be fixed at 

$0.125 per inshell pound of walnuts. 

§ § 984.450 and 984.451 [Removed and 

Reserved] 

■ 20. Lift the stays on §§ 984.450(a) and 

(b) and 984.451(c) and remove and 

reserve the sections. 

§ 984.452 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 21. Remove and reserve § 984.452. 

§ 984.456 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 22. Lift the stay on § 984.456 and 

remove and reserve the section. 

§ 984.459 [Amended] 

■ 23. Amend § 984.459 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (a)(3). 

§ 984.464 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 24. Lift the stay on § 984.464(a) and 

remove and reserve the section. 

■ 25. Amend § 984.472 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 984.472 Reports of merchantable 

walnuts, received, shipped, and committed. 

* * * * * 

(b) Reports of walnuts purchased 

directly from growers by handlers who 

are manufacturers or retailers shall be 

submitted to the Board on CWB Form 

No. 6, not later than the 5th day of the 

month following the month in which 

the walnuts were purchased. Such 

reports shall show the quantity of 

walnuts purchased. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Section 984.476 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 984.476 Report of walnut receipts 

produced outside California or the United 

States. 

Each handler who receives walnuts 

from outside California or the United 

States shall file with the Board, on CWB 

Form No. 7, a report of the receipt of 

such walnuts. The report shall be filed 

as follows: On or before December 5 for 

such walnuts received during the period 

September 1 to November 30; on or 

before March 5 for such walnuts 

received during the period December 1 

to February 28 (February 29 in a leap 

year); on or before June 5 for such 

walnuts received during the period 

March 1 to May 31; and on or before 

September 5 for such walnuts received 

during the period June 1 to August 31. 

The report shall include the quantity of 

such walnuts received, the country of 

origin for such walnuts, and whether 

such walnuts are inshell or shelled. 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06521 Filed 3–31–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Parts 104, 109, 110, and 114 

[NOTICE 2022–08] 

Independent Spending by 

Corporations, Labor Organizations, 

Foreign Nationals, and Certain Political 

Committees (Citizens United) 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of disposition of 

petitions for rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission announces 

its disposition of two Petitions for 

Rulemaking filed on June 19 and June 

22, 2015. The Petitions asked the 

Commission to revise existing 

regulations and issue new regulations 

concerning: Disclosure of certain 

financing information regarding 

independent expenditures and 

electioneering communications, 

election-related spending by foreign 

nationals; solicitations of corporate and 

labor organization employees and 

members; and the independence of 

expenditures made by independentexpenditure-only political committees 

and accounts. Because there were not 

four affirmative votes in support of the 

Petitions, the Commission is not 

initiating a rulemaking. 

DATES: April 1, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 

Counsel, or Ms. Heather Filemyr, 

Attorney, 1050 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 

or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

19, 2015, the Federal Election 

Commission received a Petition for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19025 

1As the Commission explained in its initial 

rulemaking addressing the Citizens United decision, 

although the Court did not directly address whether 

labor organizations, like corporations, also have a 

First Amendment right to use their general treasury 

funds for independent expenditures and 

electioneering communications, the Act and 

Commission regulations generally treat labor 

organizations similarly to corporations. See Final 

Rules on Independent Expenditures and 

Electioneering Communications by Corporations 

and Labor Organizations, 79 FR 62,797, 62,798 n.3 

(October 21, 2014) (citing 52 U.S.C. 30118; 11 CFR 

part 114; and Advisory Opinion 2010–11 

(Commonsense Ten) at n.3.) The Commission 

further explained that the Court in Citizens United, 

when addressing corporations, often referred to 

labor organizations and provided no basis for 

treating labor organization communications 

differently than corporate communications under 

the First Amendment. Id. (citing Citizens United, 

558 U.S. at 318, 343). Therefore, the Commission 

concluded that the changes to its regulations 

necessitated by the Citizens United decision should 

apply equally to both corporations and labor 

organizations. Id. 

2https://www.fec.gov/resources/updates/ 

agendas/2016/mtgdoc_16-04-a.pdf. 

3https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.

htm?docid=346628. 

4https://www.fec.gov/resources/updates/ 

agendas/2016/mtgdoc_16-04-a.pdf. 

5https://www.fec.gov/updates/december-17-2015- 

open-meeting. 

Rulemaking from Make Your Laws PAC, 

Inc. and Make Your Laws Advocacy, 

Inc. On June 22, 2015, the Commission 

received a Petition for Rulemaking from 

Craig Holman and Public Citizen. Both 

Petitions asked the Commission to 

revise existing regulations and issue 

new regulations in four areas in 

response to the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 

U.S. 310 (2010), which held that the 

Federal Election Campaign Act’s, 52 

U.S.C. 30101–45 (the ‘‘Act’’), ban on 

corporate independent campaign-related 

spending was unconstitutional.1

The first area of regulations the 

Petitions asked the Commission to 

revise are those that implement the 

Act’s requirement that every person 

who makes an electioneering 

communication aggregating in excess of 

$10,000 in a calendar year and every 

person (other than a political 

committee) that makes independent 

expenditures in excess of $250 with 

respect to a given election in a calendar 

year report certain information to the 

Commission. 52 U.S.C. 30104(c)(1) and 

(2), (f); 11 CFR 104.20(b) and (c), 

109.10(b), (e). The Petitions asked the 

Commission to ‘‘[e]nsure full public 

disclosure of corporate and labor 

organization independent spending’’ by 

‘‘requir[ing] that outside spending 

groups disclose their donors.’’ 

Second, the Act and Commission 

regulations prohibit foreign nationals 

from ‘‘directly or indirectly’’ making 

contributions, expenditures, and 

electioneering communications. 52 

U.S.C. 30121(a); 11 CFR 110.20. The 

Petitions asked the Commission to 

‘‘[c]larify that the prohibition on foreign 

national campaign-related spending 

restricts such spending by U.S. 

corporations owned or controlled by a 

foreign national.’’ 

Third, Commission regulations 

prohibit corporations and labor 

organizations from ‘‘[u]sing coercion 

. . . to urge any individual to make a 

contribution or engage in fundraising 

activities on behalf of a candidate or 

political committee,’’ 11 CFR 

114.2(f)(2)(iv), and restrict how 

corporations and labor organizations 

may solicit contributions to their 

separate segregated funds from 

employees and members. 11 CFR 

114.5(a)(2)–(5); see also 52 U.S.C. 

30118(b)(3). The Petitions asked the 

Commission to ‘‘[c]larify that 

corporations and labor organizations are 

prohibited from coercing their 

employees and members into providing 

financial or other support for the 

corporation’s or labor organization’s 

independent political activities.’’ 

Fourth, the Petitions asked the 

Commission to ‘‘[e]nsure that the 

expenditures made by’’ independentexpenditure-only political committees 

and accounts, see, e.g., SpeechNow.org 

v. FEC, 599 F.3d. 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010), 

‘‘are truly independent of federal 

candidates.’’ 

In response to the Petitions, the 

Commission published a Notice of 

Availability (‘‘NOA’’) on July 29, 2015 

to ask for public comment on the 

Petitions. 80 FR 45,116 (July 29, 2015). 

The Commission received 

approximately 11,759 comments from 

11,769 commenters on the NOA. See 

Minutes of An Open Meeting of the 

Federal Election Commission, December 

17, 2015 (approved February 11, 2016) 

at 8.2 Of the comments received, 11,414 

commenters supported the Petitions. Id. 

Those commenters supporting the 

Petitions stated, among other reasons, 

that the new and revised regulations 

were necessary to provide adequate 

disclosure to the public and to clarify 

legal requirements applicable to 

corporations, labor organizations, and 

foreign nationals following Supreme 

Court’s decision in Citizens United. 

Other commenters opposed the 

Petitions. Concerns expressed by those 

commenters included that revised 

regulations would be unnecessary, 

exceed the Commission’s statutory 

authority, and impermissibly burden 

free speech rights under the First 

Amendment. 

After considering the comments 

received, the Commission voted on a 

motion to initiate a rulemaking to adopt 

the regulations proposed by the 

Petitioners. See Certification of 

Commission Vote, December 17, 2015.3

Three Commissioners voted to initiate a 

rulemaking based on the Petitions, and 

three Commissioners voted against 

initiating a rulemaking. Id. Among other 

reasons for supporting a rulemaking, 

Commissioners who voted in favor of 

the motion stated that the Commission 

should open a rulemaking to address 

significant issues that have arisen 

following the Citizens United decision 

and that Commission’s coordination 

rules, created prior to the existence of 

super PACs, are outdated. See Minutes 

of An Open Meeting of the Federal 

Election Commission, December 17, 

2015 (approved February 11, 2016) at 

7.4 Commissioners who voted against 

the motion reasoned that Congress had 

considered but not adopted legislative 

changes following the Citizen United 

decision and expressed the view that 

the Commission should not act where 

Congress had failed to do so. Audio 

Recording of Discussion on Rulemaking 

Petition: Independent Spending by 

Corporations, Labor Organizations, 

Foreign Nationals, and Certain Political 

Committees (Citizens United) (Dec. 17, 

2015).5 These Commissioners also 

stated that coordination by super PACs 

was adequately addressed by the 

Commission’s existing regulations. Id. 

The Act requires an affirmative vote 

of at least four Commissioners to take 

any action to amend a regulation. See 52 

U.S.C. 30106(c) and 30107(a)(8). 

Accordingly, the Commission is not 

initiating a rulemaking at this time. Id.; 

see also Definition of ‘‘Express 

Advocacy,’’ Notice of Disposition of 

Petition for Rulemaking, 64 FR 27,478 

(May 20, 1999) (denying a petition to 

initiate a rulemaking because it did not 

garner the affirmative vote of four 

Commissioners). 

Because the motion to initiate a 

rulemaking to adopt the regulations 

proposed by the Petitioners did not 

receive the required affirmative vote of 

four or more Commissioners, the 

Commission is notifying the public that 

it is not initiating a new rulemaking in 

response to the Petitions. 

Copies of the comments, the NOA, 

and the Petitions for Rulemaking are 

available on the Commission’s website, 

http://www.fec.gov/fosers/ (REG 2015– 

04 Independent Spending by 

Corporations, Labor Organizations, 

Foreign Nationals, and Certain Political 

Committees (Citizens United) (2015)). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
19026 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: March 28, 2022. 

On behalf of the Commission. 

Allen J. Dickerson, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06895 Filed 3–31–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 115 

[NOTICE 2022–09] 

Federal Contractors 

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 November 18, 

2014, by Public Citizen. The petitioner 

asked that the Commission amend its 

regulations regarding federal contractors 

to include certain factors for 

determining whether entities of the 

same corporate family are distinct 

business entities for purposes of the 

prohibition on contributions by federal 

contractors. Because there were not four 

affirmative votes in support of the 

petition, the Commission is not 

initiating a rulemaking. 

DATES: April 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: All comments must be in 

writing, addressed to Mr. Robert Mark 

Knop, Assistant General Counsel, and 

submitted in hard copy form to the 

Federal Election Commission, 1050 First 

St. NE, Washington, DC 20463. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 

Counsel, or Mr. Joseph P. Wenzinger, 

Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 

(202) 694–1650 or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part 115 of 

the Commission’s regulations prohibits 

federal contractors from making 

contributions or expenditures to any 

political party, political committee, or 

federal candidate, or to any person for 

any political purpose or use. 11 CFR 

115.2(a); see also 52 U.S.C. 30119(a)(1). 

Part 115 further prohibits any person 

from knowingly soliciting a contribution 

from any federal contractor. 11 CFR 

115.2(c); see also 52 U.S.C. 30119(a)(2). 

On November 18, 2014, the Commission 

received a Petition for Rulemaking from 

Public Citizen asking the Commission to 

amend 11 CFR part 115 to include 

certain factors for determining whether 

entities of the same corporate family are 

distinct business entities for purposes of 

these prohibitions. 

The Commission published a Notice 

of Availability (‘‘NOA’’) on March 30, 

2015 to ask for public comment on the 

petition. 80 FR 16595 (Mar. 30, 2015). 

The Commission received 

approximately 19,750 comments on the 

NOA. 

After considering the comments 

received, the Commission voted on a 

motion to initiate a rulemaking to adopt 

the regulations proposed by the petition. 

Three Commissioners voted to initiate a 

rulemaking based on the petition, and 

three Commissioners voted against 

initiating a rulemaking. Certification, 

Motion to Open a Rulemaking on REG 

2014–09 in Response to Public 

Comment, Agenda Document 15–60–A 

(Nov. 13, 2015) at 2, https://sers.fec.gov/ 

fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=346292. 

Commissioners voting to initiate a 

rulemaking explained that new rules 

may be necessary to prevent federal 

contractors from creating ‘‘nominal 

subsidiaries’’ to make political 

contributions. See Audio Recording of 

Discussion on REG 2014–09 

Amendment of 11 CFR 115 (Nov. 10, 

2015) (‘‘Audio Recording’’) at 1:51–4:10, 

https://www.fec.gov/resources/audio/ 

2015/2015111004.mp3 (statement of 

Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub) 

(stating that Act’s restrictions ‘‘are at 

risk of being rendered unenforceable if 

corporations can skirt the law by 

creating nominal subsidiaries to make 

political contributions’’); Statement of 

Commissioner Ann M. Ravel on REG 

2014–09 (Amendment of 11 CFR part 

115) at 2, https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

showpdf.htm?docid= (stating that Act’s 

restrictions could be ‘‘easily evaded by 

technical legal maneuvering that leaves 

the intent of the law completely 

thwarted’’). On the other hand, a 

Commissioner voting against initiating a 

rulemaking explained that he was 

‘‘persuaded by comments’’ arguing that 

Congress passed the federal-contractor 

ban ‘‘against a background of commonlaw corporate principles’’ that the 

Commission should not disrupt in the 

absence of direction by Congress. Audio 

Recording at 4:13–8:43 (statement of 

Vice Chairman Matthew S. Petersen) 

(stating that Commission has not ‘‘been 

instructed by Congress to disrupt that 

background understanding, though 

they’ve amended the law on a number 

of different occasions’’ in the ‘‘nearly 

four decades’’ the Commission has been 

applying the federal-contractor ban). 

The Act requires an affirmative vote 

of at least four Commissioners to take 

any action to amend a regulation. See 52 

U.S.C. 30106(c) and 30107(a)(8). 

Accordingly, the Commission is not 

initiating a rulemaking. See also 

Definition of ‘‘Express Advocacy,’’ 

Notice of Disposition of Petition for 

Rulemaking, 64 FR 27478 (May 20, 

1999) (denying a petition to initiate a 

rulemaking because it did not garner the 

affirmative vote of four Commissioners). 

Copies of the comments, the NOA, the 

Petition for Rulemaking, and related 

documents are available on the 

Commission’s website, https://

www.fec.gov/fosers/ (reference REG 

2014–09 Amendment of 11 CFR 115). 

Dated: March 28, 2022. 

On behalf of the Commission. 

Allen J. Dickerson, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06898 Filed 3–31–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2022–0155; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2021–00585–T] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ 

Aviation ULC (Type Certificate 

Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model 

CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 

440) airplanes; Model CL–600–2C10 

(Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) 

airplanes; Model CL–600–2C11 

(Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes; 

Model CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet 

Series 705) airplanes; Model CL–600– 

2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; 

and Model CL–600–2E25 (Regional Jet 

Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed 

AD was prompted by reports of 

displayed headings changing from MAG 

to TRU with no pilot action, which may 

result in misleading heading 

information on both primary function 

displays (PFDs) and multi-function 

displays (MFDs), and misleading course 

information on flight management 

systems (FMS). This proposed AD 

would require amending the existing 

airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide 

the flightcrew with updated procedures 

for accurate heading and course 

information. The FAA is proposing this 

AD to address the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by May 16, 2022. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1