62224 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1Section 304 of BCRA added a new paragraph (i) 

to 2 U.S.C. 441a, which addressed Senate elections. 

Section 319 of BCRA added a new section 441a– 

1 to the Act, which addressed elections for the 

House Representatives. The Senate provisions also 

added new notification and reporting requirements 

in 2 U.S.C. 434. 

persuasive to support the proposed 

rulemaking. The NRC’s policy on not 

using decommissioning trust funds for 

the early disposal of MRCs during 

operations is prudent and necessary 

generically to preserve and protect such 

funds. Other sources of funds can be 

used to dispose of MRCs during 

operations. Furthermore, under 10 CFR 

50.12, licensees may request an 

exemption to permit withdrawal of 

decommissioning trust funds to dispose 

of MRC’s, which will be reviewed on a 

case-by-case basis in extraordinary 

circumstances. Therefore, the 

Commission denies PRM–50–88 filed by 

EnergySolutions. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day 

of October, 2008. 

Bruce S. Mallett, 

Acting Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. E8–24897 Filed 10–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Parts 100, 101, 102, 104, 110, 

113, 400, 9001, 9003, 9031, and 9033 

[Notice 2008–11] 

Increased Contribution and 

Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits 

for Candidates Opposing Self-financed 

Candidates 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Election 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) requests 

comments on the proposed deletion of 

its rules regarding increased 

contribution limits and coordinated 

party expenditure limits for Senate and 

House of Representatives candidates 

facing self-financed opponents. These 

rules were promulgated to implement 

sections 304 and 319 of the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known 

as the ‘‘Millionaires’ Amendment.’’ In 

Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 

the Supreme Court held that sections 

319(a) and (b), regarding House of 

Representatives elections, were 

unconstitutional. The Court’s holding 

also applies to the contribution and 

spending limits in section 304 regarding 

Senate elections. The Commission, 

therefore, proposes to remove its current 

rules that implement the Millionaires’ 

Amendment. In addition, the 

Commission proposes to retain certain 

other rules that generally are applicable 

throughout the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘FECA’’). 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 November 21, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: All comments must be in 

writing, must be addressed to Mr. 

Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 

Counsel, and must be submitted in 

either e-mail, facsimile, or paper copy 

form. Commenters are strongly 

encouraged to submit comments by email to ensure timely receipt and 

consideration. E-mail comments must 

be sent to millionairerepeal@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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 

Counsel, or Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, 

Attorney, 999 E Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 

or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission seeks to revise its current 

regulations to reflect the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Davis v. Federal 

Election Commission, 554 U.S.___, 128 

S. Ct. 2759 (2008) that invalidated the 

Millionaires’ Amendment. The 

Commission proposes to delete its 

current rules at 11 CFR 100.19(g), 

104.19, 110.5(b)(2), and Part 400. It 

proposes to retain and revise its current 

rules at 11 CFR 100.33, 100.153, 101.1, 

102.2(a)(1)(viii), 113.1(g)(6)(ii), 9001.1, 

9003.1(b)(8), 9031.1, and 9033.1(b)(10). 

It proposes to retain unchanged its 

current rules at 11 CFR 

110.1(b)(3)(ii)(C), 116.11, 116.12, and 

9035.2(c). 

I. Background 

The Millionaires’ Amendment 1 of the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–155, (March 27, 

2002) (‘‘BCRA’’), increased certain 

contribution limits and coordinated 

party expenditure limits for Senate and 

House of Representatives candidates 

facing opponents who spent significant 

amounts of personal funds. When a selffinanced opponent spent personal funds 

above a certain threshold amount, the 

Millionaires’ Amendment permitted a 

candidate to accept individual 

contributions under increased 

contribution limits. 2 U.S.C. 441a(i) and 

441a–1(a). When certain other threshold 

amounts were reached, the Millionaires’ 

Amendment also allowed national and 

state political party committees to make 

unlimited coordinated party 

expenditures on behalf of the candidate 

in the general election. Id. 

On December 19, 2002, the 

Commission approved interim final 

rules to implement the Millionaires’ 

Amendment. See Interim Final Rules on 

Increased Contribution and Coordinated 

Party Expenditure Limits for Candidates 

Opposing Self-Financed Candidates, 68 

FR 3970 (Jan. 27, 2003) (‘‘Interim Final 

Rules’’). The Commission sought public 

comments on the Interim Final Rules, as 

well as on specific issues discussed in 

the Explanation and Justification. No 

comments were received. These Interim 

Final Rules were in effect during the 

2004 and 2006 election cycles, and the 

beginning of the 2008 election cycle. 

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court 

invalidated the Millionaires’ 

Amendment. In Davis, the Supreme 

Court reviewed a challenge by a selffinanced candidate who triggered the 

Millionaires’ Amendment in the 2004 

and 2006 elections for the House of 

Representatives. The Supreme Court 

held that the House of Representatives 

provision of the Millionaires’ 

Amendment was unconstitutional 

because it violated the plaintiff’s First 

Amendment rights. 128 S.Ct. at 2775. 

The Supreme Court invalidated the 

entire BCRA section 319 relating to 

House elections, including the increased 

contribution limits in 319(a) and its 

companion disclosure requirements in 

319(b). The Court reasoned that the 

Millionaires’ Amendment imposed a 

substantial burden on the plaintiff’s 

exercise of his First Amendment right to 

use personal funds for campaign speech, 

and that the burden was not justified by 

any governmental interest in 

eliminating corruption or the perception 

of corruption. 128 S.Ct. at 2772–73. 

On July 25, 2008, the Commission 

issued a Public Statement that, in light 

of the Davis decision, it would no longer 

enforce the Millionaires’ Amendment. 

See Press Release, Public Statement on 

the Supreme Court’s Decision in Davis 

v. FEC, July 25, 2008, available at 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62225 

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/ 

220080725millionaire.shtml. As of June 

26, 2008, the increased contribution 

limits and reporting requirements were 

no longer in effect, and political party 

committees were no longer permitted to 

make increased coordinated party 

expenditures on behalf of self-financed 

candidates. Id. 

II. Proposed Removal of Current 11 

CFR Part 400—Increased Limits for 

Candidates Opposing Self-Financed 

Candidates 

The Commission proposes to delete 

current 11 CFR Part 400 because the 

statutory foundation for Part 400 has 

been invalidated by the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Davis. The 

Commission’s rules at 11 CFR Part 400 

implement the Millionaires’ 

Amendment. See Interim Final Rules at 

3975. The rules at Part 400: (1) Provide 

the notification and reporting 

requirements for Senate and House of 

Representatives candidates (subpart B); 

(2) explain when the increased 

contribution limits apply (subpart C); (3) 

explain how to calculate the increased 

contribution limits (subpart D); and (4) 

explain how candidates’ authorized 

committees must dispose of excess 

contributions. In Davis, the Supreme 

Court decided that increased 

contribution limits and disclosure 

requirements for House of 

Representatives candidates in BCRA 

sections 319(a) and (b) were 

unconstitutional. Thus, the 

Commission’s rules at 11 CFR Part 400 

that implement BCRA sections 319(a) 

and (b) are no longer valid. 

The Supreme Court in Davis struck 

down only BCRA sections 319(a) and (b) 

governing House of Representatives 

elections. The Commission, however, 

believes that the Supreme Court’s 

analysis in Davis also precludes 

enforcement of the Commission’s rules 

implementing BCRA sections 304(a) and 

(b), which provide increased 

contribution limits and disclosure 

requirements for Senate elections. In 

Davis, the Court concluded that 

increased contribution limits for a 

House of Representatives candidate 

facing a self-financed candidate 

impermissibly burdened the First 

Amendment right of the self-financed 

candidates to spend their own money 

for campaign speech. 128 S.Ct. at 2771. 

There is no basis to conclude that the 

constitutional implications would be 

different for similarly situated 

candidates in Senate elections, governed 

by BCRA sections 304(a) and (b), than 

in the respective House of 

Representatives elections, governed by 

BCRA sections 319(a) and (b). 

The Commission’s rules at Part 400 

implement the Millionaires’ 

Amendment provisions for both House 

and Senate elections. The Commission, 

therefore, proposes to delete 11 CFR 

Part 400 in its entirety. 

III. Proposed Amendments to Other 

Provisions 

A. Part 100—Definitions 

1. Proposed Removal of Current 11 CFR 

100.19(g)—File, Filed, or Filing 

The Commission proposes to delete 

current 11 CFR 100.19(g) because the 

statutory foundation for this provision 

has been invalidated by the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Davis. Section 

100.19 defines ‘‘file, filed, or filing’’ and 

specifies when a document is 

considered timely filed. Paragraph (g) 

states that a candidate’s notification of 

expenditures from personal funds under 

11 CFR 400.21 and 400.22 are 

considered timely filed if sent by 

facsimile or electronic mail to all 

appropriate parties within 24 hours of 

the time the thresholds set forth in 11 

CFR 400.21 and 400.22 are exceeded, 

thereby triggering the reporting 

requirement. 

As explained above, the Commission 

proposes to delete current 11 CFR Part 

400 in its entirety because the Supreme 

Court invalidated the Millionaires’ 

Amendment. The Commission proposes 

to delete paragraph (g) from section 

100.19 because the candidate’s 

notifications under 11 CFR 400.21 and 

400.22 would no longer be required. 

2. Proposed Revision of 11 CFR 

100.33—Definition of ‘‘Personal Funds’’ 

The Commission proposes to revise 

the definition of ‘‘personal funds’’ in 11 

CFR 100.33 by deleting the crossreference to current section 400.2, 

which the Commission intends to 

remove through this rulemaking. The 

Commission proposes to retain the 

remainder of section 100.33 because the 

definition of ‘‘personal funds’’ in 

section 100.33 applies generally to other 

Title 2 rules that use the term ‘‘personal 

funds.’’ See Interim Final Rules, 68 FR 

at 3972. The Commission also notes that 

the definition of ‘‘personal funds’’ at 11 

CFR 9003.2(c)(3), which applies to Title 

26 of the United States Code, would 

remain unchanged. 

B. Proposed Revision of 11 CFR 101.1— 

Candidate Designations 

The Commission proposes to delete 

the sentence in paragraph (a) of current 

11 CFR 101.1 that requires Senate and 

House of Representatives candidates to 

state, on their Statements of Candidacy 

on FEC Form 2 (or, if the candidate is 

not required to file electronically, on his 

or her letter containing the same 

information), the amount by which the 

candidate intends to exceed the 

threshold amount as defined in 11 CFR 

400.9. The reporting requirements of 

that sentence would no longer be 

necessary because, as explained above, 

the Commission proposes to delete 11 

CFR Part 400 through this rulemaking. 

C. Proposed 11 CFR 102.2—Statement 

of Organization: Forms and Committee 

Identification Number 

The Commission proposes to retain 

and revise current 11 CFR 

102.2(a)(1)(viii), which requires 

principal campaign committees to 

provide an electronic mail address and 

a facsimile number on FEC Form 1. 

Paragraph (viii) was promulgated by the 

Interim Final Rules to facilitate the 

notification of expenditures from 

personal funds under Part 400. See 

Interim Final Rules, 68 FR at 3972. 

Although the notifications under Part 

400 would no longer be required, the 

electronic mail address provided by 

committees facilitates the exchange of 

information between committees and 

the Commission for other purposes 

under FECA. Continuing to require 

committees’ electronic mail address, 

therefore, would continue to benefit the 

committees as well as the Commission. 

The Commission, however, proposes to 

delete the requirement that committees 

provide their facsimile number because 

it does not routinely communicate with 

committees via facsimile machine. 

Consistent with its delegated 

authority to require political committees 

to provide an ‘‘address’’ when filing a 

statement of organization under 2 U.S.C. 

433(b)(1), the Commission proposes to 

retain the requirement that committees 

report their electronic mail address on 

FEC Form 1. 

D. Proposed Removal of Current 11 CFR 

104.19—Special Reporting 

Requirements for Principal Campaign 

Committees of Candidates for Election 

to the United States Senate or United 

States House of Representatives 

The Commission proposes the remove 

and reserve current 11 CFR 104.19 

because the statutory foundation of this 

section was invalidated by the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Davis. Current 

section 104.19 requires principal 

campaign committees of Senate and 

House of Representatives candidates to 

report information necessary to 

calculate their ‘‘gross receipts 

advantage,’’ which is defined at 2 U.S.C. 

441a(i)(E) (Senate) and 441a–1(a)(2)(B) 

(House of Representatives). This 

reporting requirement was promulgated 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
62226 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

to ensure the candidates in the same 

House or Senate election have sufficient 

and timely information to calculate the 

‘‘opposition personal funds amount’’ 

under 11 CFR Part 400.10. See Interim 

Final Rules, 68 FR at 3972. Because the 

Commission intends to delete Part 400 

in response to the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Davis, the reporting 

requirements under section 104.19 

would no longer be necessary. 

E. Proposed Deletion of 110.5(b)(2)— 

Biennial Contribution Limitations 

The Commission proposes to delete 

current paragraph (b)(2) of section 110.5 

because the statutory foundation for this 

provision has been invalidated by the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Davis. 

Paragraph (b)(2) states the 

circumstances under which the 

individual biennial limits on 

contributions do not apply to 

contributions made pursuant to 11 CFR 

Part 400. As explained above, the 

Commission intends to remove 11 CFR 

Part 400 because the Davis decision 

invalidated the Millionaires’ 

Amendment. Accordingly, the 

exception to individual contribution 

limits under section 110.5(b)(2) is no 

longer valid. The Commission, 

therefore, proposes to delete 11 CFR 

110.5(b)(2). 

F. Proposed Retention of 11 CFR 116.11 

and 116.12—Repayment of Candidate 

Loans 

The Commission proposes to retain 

sections 11 CFR 116.11 and 116.12 of 

the regulations concerning the 

repayment of candidates’ personal 

loans. The Commission seeks comment 

on this proposal in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Davis. 

BCRA added a new provision 

prohibiting candidates and their 

authorized committees from using 

contributions made after the election to 

repay loans from the candidates to their 

authorized committees to the extent the 

contributions total over $250,000. See 2 

U.S.C. 441a(j). These loans are referred 

to as ‘‘personal loans.’’ The 

Commission’s current rules at 11 CFR 

116.11 and 116.12 implement 2 U.S.C. 

441a(j). Section 116.11 prohibits an 

authorized committee from using 

contributions made after an election to 

repay any personal loan by a candidate 

that exceeds $250,000. Section 116.12 

addresses the repayment of candidate’s 

personal loans that, in the aggregate, are 

equal to or less than $250,000. 

The Commission believes that the 

Davis decision did not invalidate the 

personal loan provision in BCRA and, 

thus, it proposes to retain the rules that 

implement that provision. The 

Commission does not have authority, on 

its own, to declare a duly enacted law 

to be unconstitutional. 

The Court in Davis did not address 

the validity of the personal loan 

provision, and the plaintiff did not 

challenge that provision. Although that 

provision is in the same statutory 

subsection of BCRA section 304(a) as 

other provisions that the Supreme Court 

in Davis held to be unconstitutional, the 

personal loan provision is placed in a 

separate subsection within 2 U.S.C. 

441a. This statutory provision has a 

wider application than other provisions 

of the Millionaires’ Amendment. It 

applies equally to all candidates and 

regardless of whether the Millionaires’ 

Amendment provisions also apply. Most 

notably, while other provisions of the 

Millionaires’ Amendment apply only to 

Senate and House of Representatives 

candidates, the loan repayment 

provision applies to candidates for all 

Federal offices, including presidential 

candidates. Because this statutory 

provision has wider application than 

the Millionaires’ Amendment, the 

Commission added new sections 11 CFR 

116.11 and 116.12 rather than include 

these rules in 11 CFR Part 400 with the 

Millionaires’ Amendment regulations. 

See Interim Final Rules at 3973. 

The Commission’s proposal to retain 

sections 116.11 and 116.12 is consistent 

with the approach it took in a recent 

advisory opinion, which was requested 

after Davis invalidated the Millionaires’ 

Amendment. See Advisory Opinion 

2008–09 (Lautenberg). Senator 

Lautenberg loaned money to his 

principal campaign committee in 

connection with his primary election. 

The Senator asked the Commission 

whether the personal loan provision 

applied to his personal loan case in light 

of the Davis decision. The Commission 

concluded that it did apply because the 

Davis decision did not address the 

constitutionality of the personal loan 

provision. The Commission explained 

that, unlike the BCRA provisions found 

to be unconstitutional in Davis, the 

personal loan provision applies equally 

to all candidates, regardless of whether 

they or their opponents have triggered 

the increased campaign contribution 

limits. 

The Commission also concluded in 

Advisory Opinion 2008–09 that the 

personal loan provision was severable 

from the Millionaires’ Amendment. As 

the Commission explained there, BCRA 

section 401 provides that the 

invalidation of one provision of BCRA 

will not affect the validity of any other 

provisions of BCRA nor the application 

of such provisions to other persons and 

circumstances. 2 U.S.C. 454. It is a wellsettled principle of statutory 

construction that ‘‘[u]nless it is evident 

that the legislature would not have 

enacted those provisions which are 

within its power, independently of that 

which is not, the invalid part may be 

dropped if what is left is fully operative 

as a law.’’ Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 

108 (1976) quoting Champlin Refining 

Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 

U.S. 210, 234 (1932)). In Buckley, the 

Supreme Court struck down certain 

provisions of FECA’s section 202, but 

expressly upheld other provisions 

within the same subsection of the 

statute. 

In Advisory Opinion 2008–09, the 

Commission found that it was not at all 

‘‘evident’’ from the text, function, or 

legislative history of the Millionaires’ 

Amendment that Congress intended the 

personal loan provision to be 

inextricably tied to the increased 

contribution limits of BCRA 304(a). 

Section 304(a) was codified in two 

separate provisions of 2 U.S.C. 441a, 

one providing for the increased 

contribution limits and the other 

limiting repayment of personal loans. 

Functionally, the personal loan 

provision can operate effectively 

without the provisions invalidated by 

Davis. Because the loan repayment 

provision’s operation does not depend 

upon the invalidated increased 

contribution limits or reporting 

provisions, its validity is not affected by 

their invalidation. Moreover, legislative 

history shows that Congress in several 

instances addressed the loan repayment 

provision separately from the 

unconstitutional provisions regarding 

increased contribution limits. See, e.g., 

147 Cong. Rec. S2450–51 (daily ed. Mar. 

19, 2001) (statement of Sen. Domenici); 

147 Cong. Rec. S2461–62 (daily ed. Mar. 

19, 2001) (statement of Sen. Domenici). 

The Commission seeks comment on 

its proposal to retain the current rules 

at 11 CFR 116.11 and 116.12 restricting 

the repayment of personal loans. 

G. Proposed Retention of 11 CFR 

110.1(b)(3)(ii)(C)—Net Debts 

Outstanding 

The Commission proposes to retain 

current 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3), which 

restricts the ability of candidates and 

their authorized committees to accept 

contributions after the election. 

Together with sections 116.11 and 

116.12, current 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3) 

implements 2 U.S.C. 441a(j). 

Candidates and their authorized 

committees cannot accept contributions 

after the election is over unless the 

candidate still has net debts outstanding 

from that election. 11 CFR 110.1(b)(1)(i). 

This rule was promulgated long before 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62227 

BCRA added the loan repayment 

restriction in 441a(j). After the election 

is over, candidates and their authorized 

committees may accept contributions up 

to the amount of their ‘‘net debts 

outstanding,’’ as defined in current 11 

CFR 110.1(b)(3)(ii). To conform with the 

fundraising restrictions in 11 CFR 

116.11, the Commission added 

paragraph (C) to section 110.1(b)(3)(ii), 

which excludes the amount of personal 

loans that exceed $250,000 from the 

definition of ‘‘net debt outstanding.’’ 

See Interim Final Rules, 68 FR at 3973. 

The Commission proposes to retain the 

current rule at 11 CFR 110.1(b)(3)(ii)(C) 

for the same reasons it intends to retain 

the current rules 11 CFR 116.11 and 

116.12, as explained above. 

H. Proposed Retention of 11 CFR 

9035.2(c)—Expenditure Limitations 

The Commission proposes to retain 

the cross-reference in current 11 CFR 

9035.2(c) to the definition of ‘‘personal 

funds’’ in 11 CFR 9003.2. Section 9035.2 

provides limitations on expenditures 

from personal or family funds when a 

candidate has accepted matching funds 

in a presidential primary election. In 

promulgating 11 CFR 9035.2(c), the 

Commission explained that it crossreferenced that section to the definition 

of ‘‘personal funds’’ in 11 CFR 9003.2 

because it was more appropriate in the 

context of Title 26 regulations than the 

Commission’s definition of ‘‘personal 

funds’’ in 11 CFR 100.33, which applies 

only to FECA. See Interim Final Rules, 

68 FR at 3986–87. For the same reason, 

the Commission continues to believe 

that the cross-reference in 11 CFR 

9035.2(c) to 11 CFR 9003.2 is 

appropriate and, therefore, it should be 

retained. 

IV. Technical and Conforming 

Amendments to Other Regulations 

A. 11 CFR 100.153—Routine Living 

Expenses; 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(ii)— 

Definition of Personal Use 

The Commission proposes to amend 

11 CFR 100.153 and 113.1(g)(6)(ii) by 

revising the cross-reference to the 

definition of ‘‘personal funds’’ in 11 

CFR 110.10(b) to current 11 CFR 100.33. 

The Commission deleted 11 CFR 

110.10(b) in the Interim Final Rules. 

The proposed change would reflect the 

Commission’s prior removal of the 

‘‘personal funds’’ definition from 

section 110.10(b) to section 100.33. 

B. 11 CFR 110.5(b)(2)—Biennial 

Contribution Limitations 

The Commission proposes to amend 

11 CFR 110.5 paragraphs (b), (d), and 

(e), by revising the spelling of the word 

‘‘bi-annual’’ to ‘‘biennial.’’ This 

proposed change would make the 

spelling consistent with the title of 

section 110.5, which uses the term 

biennial. 

C. 11 CFR 9001.1—Scope; 11 CFR 

9003.1—Candidate and Committee 

Agreement; 11 CFR 9031.1—Scope; 11 

CFR 9033.1—Candidate and Committee 

Agreement 

The Commission proposes to make 

technical amendments to these sections 

that would update the reference to its 

other regulations to reflect the proposed 

elimination of Part 400. 

V. Request for Comments 

The Commission invites comments 

from the public concerning any of the 

proposals outlined above. The 

Commission also invites comments from 

the public regarding any additional 

changes that should be made to 11 CFR 

100.33, 101.1, 102.2(a)(1)(viii), 

110.1(b)(3)(ii)(C), 116.11, 116.12, 

9035.2(c), or any other section of the 

regulations to conform with the 

holdings and points of law articulated 

in the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Davis. 

Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 

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

Act) 

The Commission certifies that the 

attached proposed rule, if adopted, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The basis for this certification 

is that few, if any, small entities would 

be affected by this proposed rulemaking, 

which applies only to Federal 

candidates and their campaign 

committees, and political committees of 

political parties. Such committees are 

not ‘‘small entities’’ under 5 U.S.C. 601. 

Candidate and party committees are not 

independently owned and operated 

because they are not financed and 

controlled by a small identifiable group 

of individuals; rather, they rely on 

contributions from a variety of persons 

to fund the committee’s activities. The 

Democratic and Republican parties also 

have a major controlling influence 

within the political arena and are 

dominant in their field. However, to the 

extent that any party committees 

representing major or minor political 

parties or any other political committees 

might be considered ‘‘small entities,’’ 

the number that would be affected by 

this rule is not substantial. 

The proposed rule also would not add 

new substantive provisions to the 

current regulations, but rather it would 

remove or retain existing regulations. 

Therefore, the attached proposed rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

List of Subjects 

11 CFR Part 100 

Elections. 

11 CFR Part 101 

Political candidates, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

11 CFR Part 102 

Political committees and parties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

11 CFR Part 104 

Campaign funds, Political committees 

and parties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

11 CFR Part 110 

Campaign funds, Political committees 

and parties. 

11 CFR Part 113 

Campaign funds. 

11 CFR Part 116 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Business and industry, 

Credit, Elections, Political candidates, 

Political committees and parties. 

11 CFR Part 400 

Campaign funds, Elections, Political 

candidates, Political committees and 

parties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

11 CFR Part 9001 

Campaign funds. 

11 CFR Part 9003 

Campaign funds, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

11 CFR Part 9031 

Campaign funds. 

11 CFR Part 9033 

Campaign funds, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

11 CFR Part 9035 

Campaign funds, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend Subchapters A, C, E, and F of 

Chapter I of Title 11 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 100—SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS 

(2 U.S.C. 431) 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431, 434, 438(a)(8), and 

439a(c). 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
62228 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

§ 100.19 [Amended] 

2. In section 100.19, is amended by 

removing the reference to ‘‘(g)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘(f)’’ in paragraph (b) 

introductory text and (b)(2) and by 

removing paragraph (g). 

3. Section 100.33 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 100.33 Personal funds. 

Personal funds of a candidate means 

the sum of all of the following: 

(a) Assets. Amounts derived from any 

asset that, under applicable State law, at 

the time the individual became a 

candidate, the candidate had legal right 

of access to or control over, and with 

respect to which the candidate had— 

(1) Legal and rightful title; or 

(2) An equitable interest; 

(b) Income. Income received during 

the current election cycle, of the 

candidate, including: 

(1) A salary and other earned income 

that the candidate earns from bona fide 

employment; 

(2) Income from the candidate’s stocks 

or other investments including interest, 

dividends, or proceeds from the sale or 

liquidation of such stocks or 

investments; 

(3) Bequests to the candidate; 

(4) Income from trusts established 

before the beginning of the election 

cycle; 

(5) Income from trusts established by 

bequest after the beginning of the 

election cycle of which the candidate is 

the beneficiary; 

(6) Gifts of a personal nature that had 

been customarily received by the 

candidate prior to the beginning of the 

election cycle; and 

(7) Proceeds from lotteries and similar 

legal games of chance; and 

(c) Jointly owned assets. Amounts 

derived from a portion of assets that are 

owned jointly by the candidate and the 

candidate’s spouse as follows: 

(1) The portion of assets that is equal 

to the candidate’s share of the asset 

under the instrument of conveyance or 

ownership; provided, however, 

(2) If no specific share is indicated by 

an instrument of conveyance or 

ownership, the value of one-half of the 

property. 

§ 100.53 [Amended] 

5. Section 100.153 is amended by 

removing the reference to ‘‘11 CFR 

110.10(b)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘11 

CFR 100.33’’. 

PART 101—CANDIDATE STATUS AND 

DESIGNATIONS (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) 

6. The authority citation for part 101 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 432(e), 434(a)(11), 

438(a)(f). 

7. Section 101.1(a) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 101.1 Candidate designations (2 U.S.C. 

432(e)(1)). 

(a) Principal Campaign Committee. 

Within 15 days after becoming a 

candidate under 11 CFR 100.3, each 

candidate, other than a nominee for the 

office of Vice President, shall designate 

in writing, a principal campaign 

committee in accordance with 11 CFR 

102.12. A candidate shall designate his 

or her principal campaign committee by 

filing a Statement of Candidacy on FEC 

Form 2, or, if the candidate is not 

required to file electronically under 11 

CFR 104.18, by filing a letter containing 

the same information (that is, the 

individual’s name and address, party 

affiliation, and office sought, the District 

and State in which Federal office is 

sought, and the name and address of his 

or her principal campaign committee at 

the place of filing specified at 11 CFR 

part 105). Each principal campaign 

committee shall register, designate a 

depository, and report in accordance 

with 11 CFR parts 102, 103, and 104. 

* * * * * 

PART 102—REGISTRATION, 

ORGANIZATION, AND 

RECORDKEEPING BY POLITICAL 

COMMITTEES (2 U.S.C. 433) 

8. The authority citation for part 102 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 432, 433, 434(a)(11), 

438(a)(8), 441d. 

9. In § 102.2, paragraph (a)(1)(viii) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 102.2 Statement of organization: Forms 

and committee identification number (2 

U.S.C. 433(b), (c)). 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(viii) If the committee is a principal 

campaign committee of a candidate for 

the Senate or the House of 

Representatives, the principal campaign 

committee’s electronic mail address. 

* * * * * 

PART 104—REPORTS BY POLITICAL 

COMMITTEES AND OTHER PERSONS 

(2 U.S.C. 434) 

10. The authority citation for part 104 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(1), 431(8), 431(9), 

432(i), 434, 438(a)(8) and (b), 439a, 441a, and 

36 U.S.C. 510. 

§ 104.19 [Removed and Reserved] 

11. Section 104.19 is removed and 

reserved. 

PART 110—CONTRIBUTION AND 

EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS AND 

PROHIBITIONS 

12. The authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(8), 431(9), 

432(c)(2), 437d, 438(a)(8), 441a, 441b, 441d, 

441e, 441f, 441g, 441h, and 36 U.S.C. 510. 

13. In § 110.5, paragraphs (b)(1), (d), 

and (e) are revised, and paragraph (b)(2) 

is removed and reserved to read as 

follows: 

§ 110.5 Aggregate biennial contribution 

limitation for individuals (2 U.S.C. 

441a(a)(3)). 

* * * * * 

(b) Biennial limitations. (1) In the twoyear period beginning on January 1 of an 

odd-numbered year and ending on 

December 31 of the next even-numbered 

year, no individual shall make 

contributions aggregating more than 

$95,000, including no more than: 

(i) $37,500 in the case of contributions 

to candidates and the authorized 

committees of candidates; and 

(ii) $57,500 in the case of any other 

contributions, of which not more than 

$37,500 may be attributable to 

contributions to political committees 

that are not political committees of any 

national political parties. 

* * * * * 

(d) Independent expenditures. The 

biennial limitation on contributions in 

this section applies to contributions 

made to persons, including political 

committees, making independent 

expenditures under 11 CFR part 109. 

(e) Contributions to delegates and 

delegate committees. The biennial 

limitation on contributions in this 

section applies to contributions to 

delegate and delegate committees under 

11 CFR 110.14. 

PART 113—USE OF CAMPAIGN 

ACCOUNTS FOR NON-CAMPAIGN 

PURPOSES 

14. The authority citation for part 113 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 2 U.S.C. 432(h), 438(a)(8), 439a, 

441a. 

§ 113.1 [Amended] 

15. Section 113.1(g)(6)(ii) is amended 

by removing the reference to ‘‘11 CFR 

110.10(b)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘11 

CFR 100.33’’. 

PART 400—[REMOVED] 

16. Under the authority of 2 U.S.C. 

437d(a)(8), part 400 is removed. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 62229 

PART 9001—SCOPE 

17. The authority citation for part 

9001 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 9009(b). 

§ 9001.1 [Amended] 

18. Section 9001.1 is amended by 

removing the number ‘‘400’’ and adding 

in its place the number ‘‘300’’ in both 

instances in which it appears. 

PART 9003—ELIGIBILITY FOR 

PAYMENTS 

19. The authority citation for part 

9003 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 9003 and 9009(b). 

§ 9003.1 [Amended] 

20. In section 9003.1, paragraph (b)(8) 

is amended by removing the number 

‘‘400’’ and adding in its place the 

number ‘‘300’’. 

PART 9031—SCOPE 

21. The authority citation for part 

9031 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 9031 and 9039(b). 

§ 9031.1 [Amended] 

22. Section 9031.1 is amended by 

removing the number ‘‘400’’ and adding 

in its place the number ‘‘300’’ in both 

instances in which it appears. 

PART 9033—ELIGIBILITY FOR 

PAYMENTS 

23. The authority citation for part 

9033 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 9003(e), 9033 and 

9039(b). 

§ 9033.1 [Amended] 

24. In section 9033.1, paragraph 

(b)(10) is amended by removing the 

number ‘‘400’’ and adding in its place 

the number ‘‘300’’. 

Dated: October 8, 2008. 

Donald F. McGahn, II, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–24505 Filed 10–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM06–22–000] 

Mandatory Reliability Standards for 

Critical Infrastructure Protection; 

Notice of Extension of Time 

Issued October 10, 2008. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Order on Proposed Clarification: 

Extension of comment date. 

SUMMARY: On September 18, 2008, the 

Commission issued an order proposing 

to clarify that the facilities within a 

nuclear generation plant in the United 

States that are not regulated by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission are 

subject to compliance with the eight 

mandatory ‘‘CIP’’ Reliability Standards 

approved in Commission Order No. 706. 

The date for filing comments on the 

Commission’s proposal is being 

extended at the request of the Edison 

Electric Institute and the Nuclear Energy 

Institute. 

DATES: Comments are due November 3, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number by any of 

the following methods: 

• Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov. 

Documents created electronically using 

word processing software should be 

filed in native applications or print-toPDF format and not in a scanned format. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand-deliver an original 

and 14 copies of their comments to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan First (Legal Information), 

Office of General Counsel, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8529; Regis Binder (Technical 

Information), Office of Electric 

Reliability, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6460. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 10, 2008, the Edison Electric 

Institute (EEI) and the Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI) filed a joint motion for an 

extension of time to file comments in 

response to the Commission’s Order on 

Proposed Clarification issued September 

18, 2008, in the above-referenced 

proceeding. (Mandatory Reliability 

Standards for Critical Infrastructure 

Protection, 124 FERC ¶ 61,247 (2008) 

(Proposed Clarification)). EEI and NEI 

state that because a majority of their 

members will be required to implement 

CIP Reliability Standards and NRC 

cybersecurity requirements in 

accordance with the clarification to be 

issued in this docket and because of the 

complex of the issues addressed in the 

Proposed Clarification, additional time 

is needed to submit well-developed 

comments. 

Upon consideration, notice is hereby 

given that an extension of time for filing 

comments is granted to and including 

November 3, 2008. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–24630 Filed 10–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Wage and Hour Division 

29 CFR Parts 3 and 5 

RIN 1215–AB67 

Protecting the Privacy of Workers: 

Labor Standards Provisions Applicable 

to Contracts Covering Federally 

Financed and Assisted Construction 

AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, 

Employment Standards Administration, 

Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In this proposed rule, the 

Department of Labor (Department or 

DOL) proposes to revise regulations 

issued pursuant to the Davis-Bacon and 

Related Acts and the Copeland AntiKickback Act to better protect the 

personal privacy of laborers and 

mechanics employed on covered 

construction contracts. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before November 19, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1215–AB67, by either 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronic comments, through the 

federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Wage and Hour Division, 

Employment Standards Administration, 

U.S. Department of Labor, Room S– 

3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210. 

Instructions: Please submit one copy 

of your comments by only one method. 

All submissions received must include 

the agency name and Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) identified 

above for this rulemaking. Comments 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS