Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62361 

is withdrawn, the NRC will address the 

comments received in response to these 

proposed revisions in a subsequent final 

rule. Absent significant modifications to 

the proposed revisions requiring 

republication, the NRC will not initiate 

a second comment period on this action 

in the event the direct final rule is 

withdrawn. 

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 significant and adverse if it 

meets the following criteria: 

(1) The comment opposes the rule and 

provides a reason sufficient to require a 

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

following comments require a 

substantive response: 

(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. 

For procedural information and the 

regulatory analysis, see the direct final 

rule published in the Rules and 

Regulations section of this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

III. Plain Writing 

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. 

L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to 

write documents in a clear, concise, 

well-organized manner that also follows 

other best practices appropriate to the 

subject or field and the intended 

audience. The NRC has written this 

document to be consistent with the 

Plain Writing Act as well as the 

Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing,’’ 

published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). 

The NRC requests comment on the 

proposed rule with respect to clarity 

and effectiveness of the language used. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 

Antitrust, Classified information, 

Criminal penalties, Fire protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, 

Medical isotopes, Molybdenum-99, 

Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants 

and reactors, Radiation protection, 

Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Utilization 

facility. 

For the reasons set out in this 

preamble and the preamble to the 

companion direct final rule being 

published concurrently with this 

proposed rule 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. 

552 and 553, the NRC is proposing to 

adopt the following amendment to 10 

CFR part 50. 

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 

FACILITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 50 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 11, 

102, 103, 104, 105, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 

183, 186, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2132, 

2133, 2134, 2135, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 

2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy 

Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206 (42 

U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 

1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 194 (2005). 

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95– 

601, sec. 10, as amended by Pub. L. 102–486, 

sec. 2902 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also 

issued under Atomic Energy Act secs. 101, 

185 (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); National 

Environmental Policy Act sec. 102 (42 U.S.C. 

4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(d), and 50.103 

also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 108 

(42 U.S.C. 2138). 

Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also 

issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 185 (42 

U.S.C. 2235). Appendix Q also issued under 

National Environmental Policy Act sec. 102 

(42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 

also issued under sec. 204 (42 U.S.C. 5844). 

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued 

under Pub. L. 97–415 (42 U.S.C. 2239). 

Section 50.78 also issued under Atomic 

Energy Act sec. 122 (42 U.S.C. 2152). 

Sections 50.80—50.81 also issued under 

Atomic Energy Act sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234). 

■ 2. In § 50.2, revise the definition of 

‘‘utilization facility’’ to read as follows: 

§ 50.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Utilization facility means: 

(1) Any nuclear reactor other than one 

designed or used primarily for the 

formation of plutonium or U–233; or 

(2) An accelerator-driven subcritical 

operating assembly used for the 

irradiation of materials containing 

special nuclear material and described 

in the application assigned docket 

number 50–608. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day 

of October, 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24733 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 110 

[NOTICE 2014–12] 

Aggregate Biennial Contribution Limits 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In addition to publishing in 

today’s Federal Register an Interim 

Final Rule to remove the aggregate 

contribution limits from the 

Commission’s regulations, the 

Commission requests comments on 

whether to begin a rulemaking to revise 

other regulations in light of certain 

language from the Supreme Court’s 

recent decision in McCutcheon v. FEC. 

The Commission intends to review the 

comments it receives as it decides what 

revisions, if any, it will propose making 

to its rules. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 15, 2015. The 

Commission will hold a hearing on 

these issues on February 11, 2015. 

Anyone wishing to testify at the 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. Comments may be submitted 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Web site at sers.fec.gov, reference REG 

2014–01. Commenters are encouraged to 

submit comments electronically to 

ensure timely receipt and consideration. 

Alternatively, comments may be 

submitted in paper form. Paper 

comments must be sent to the Federal 

Election Commission, Attn.: Amy L. 

Rothstein, Assistant General Counsel, 

999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 

20463. All comments must include the 

full name and postal service address of 

a commenter, and of each commenter if 

filed jointly, or they will not be 

considered. The Commission will post 

comments on its Web site at the 

conclusion of the comment period. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General 

Counsel, or Mr. Theodore M. Lutz, 

Attorney, 999 E Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 

or (800) 424–9530. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62362 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Under the aggregate limits, as indexed for 

inflation in the 2013–14 election cycle, an 

individual could contribute up to $48,600 to 

candidates and their authorized committees, and up 

to $74,600 to other political committees, of which 

no more than $48,600 could be contributed to 

political committees other than national party 

committees. See Price Index Adjustments for 

Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and 

Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold, 78 FR 

8530, 8532 (Feb. 6, 2013). 

2 McCutcheon, 134 S. Ct. at 1453–54, 1458–60. 

3Factual & Legal Analysis at 6–7, MUR 5732 

(Matt Brown for U.S. Senate) (Apr. 4, 2007) 

(concluding that there was no reason to believe 

earmarking had occurred where ‘‘there were no 

cover letters or other instructions accompanying the 

checks’’ or ‘‘on the checks themselves’’) (citing 

MURs 4831/5274 (Nixon)); see also First General 

Counsel’s Report at 14–16, MUR 5445 (Geoffrey 

Davis for Congress) (Feb. 2, 2005); First General 

Counsel’s Report at 9, MUR 5125 (Paul Perry for 

Congress) (Dec. 20, 2002) (finding no reason to 

believe where there was no ‘‘designation, 

instruction, or encumbrance on the contribution’’). 

4 In Advisory Opinion 2010–09 (Club for Growth) 

at 5, the Commission concluded that ‘‘11 CFR 

110.1(h) and its rationale do not apply to [an 

independent-expenditure-only political 

committee’s] solicitations or any contributions it 

receives that are earmarked for specific 

independent expenditures.’’ 

5 In 1985, the Commission proposed revising 11 

CFR 110.1(h) to clarify its interpretation of the 

regulation and included a proposal to articulate 

‘‘indicia of a contributor’s ‘knowledge.’ ’’ See 

Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and 

Prohibitions: Contributions by Persons and 

Multicandidate Political Committees, 50 FR 15169, 

15172–75 (Apr. 17, 1985). Ultimately, the 

Commission decided not to revise that section. 

Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and 

Prohibitions; Contributions by Persons and 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Federal Election Campaign Act, 

52 U.S.C. 30101–46 (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

431–57) (‘‘FECA’’), imposes two types of 

limits on the amount that individuals 

may contribute in connection with 

federal elections. The ‘‘base limits’’ 

restrict how much an individual may 

contribute to a particular candidate or 

political committee per election or 

calendar year. See 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1) 

(formerly 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)). The 

‘‘aggregate limits’’ restrict how much an 

individual may contribute to all 

candidate committees, political party 

committees, and other political 

committees in each two-year election 

cycle.1 See 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(3) 

(formerly 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)). The 

Commission has implemented the 

aggregate limits in its regulations at 11 

CFR 110.5. 

On April 2, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court held that the aggregate 

contribution limits at 52 U.S.C. 

30116(a)(3) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

441a(a)(3)) are unconstitutional. 

McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. l, 134 S. 

Ct. 1434, 1442, 1450–59 (2014) 

(plurality op.). The Court’s decision did 

not affect the base limits. See id. at 

1442. Accordingly, in an Interim Final 

Rule published today in the Federal 

Register, the Commission deleted 11 

CFR 110.5 and made technical and 

conforming changes to 11 CFR 110.1(c), 

110.14(d) and (g), 110.17(b), and 110.19 

to conform its regulations to the 

McCutcheon decision. 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on whether it should further modify its 

regulations or practices in response to 

certain language from the McCutcheon 

decision.2 The Commission 

acknowledges that these issues are not 

presented in this Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in a way to fully 

apprise interested parties with sufficient 

clarity and specificity for the 

Commission to enact a final rule. 

Although it held the aggregate limits 

to be unconstitutional, the Supreme 

Court indicated that there are ‘‘multiple 

alternatives available to Congress that 

would serve the Government’s interest 

in preventing circumvention while 

avoiding ‘unnecessary abridgment’ of 

First Amendment rights.’’ McCutcheon, 

134 S. Ct. at 1458 (quoting Buckley v. 

Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25 (1976)). The Court 

identified mechanisms that could be 

implemented or amended to prevent 

circumvention of the base limits, 

including: Earmarking regulations, 11 

CFR part 110; affiliation factors, 11 CFR 

100.5; joint fundraising committee 

regulations, 11 CFR 102.17; and 

disclosure regulations, 11 CFR part 104. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it should modify its regulations 

or practices in these areas, as discussed 

below. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should make 

any other regulatory changes in light of 

the decision. 

Earmarking 

The Act provides that ‘‘all 

contributions made by a person, either 

directly or indirectly, on behalf of a 

particular candidate, including 

contributions which are in any way 

earmarked or otherwise directed 

through an intermediary or conduit to 

such candidate,’’ are contributions from 

that person to the candidate. 52 U.S.C. 

30116(a)(8) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

441a(a)(8)). The Commission’s 

regulations define the term ‘‘earmarked’’ 

to mean ‘‘a designation, instruction, or 

encumbrance, whether direct or 

indirect, express or implied, oral or 

written, which results in all or any part 

of a contribution or expenditure being 

made to, or expended on behalf of, a 

clearly identified candidate or a 

candidate’s authorized committee.’’ 11 

CFR 110.6(b)(1). 

In analyzing whether the aggregate 

contribution limits served to prevent 

circumvention of the base limits, the 

Court relied on this ‘‘broad[ ]’’ 

definition of ‘‘earmarked’’ at 11 CFR 

110.6(b)(1) to conclude that Commission 

rules already cover ‘‘implicit agreements 

to circumvent the base limits.’’ 

McCutcheon, 134 S. Ct. at 1447, 1452– 

56, 1459; see also id. at 1453 (‘‘[A 

donor] cannot . . . even imply that he 

would like his money recontributed to 

[a candidate].’’). In enforcement actions, 

however, the Commission has 

determined that funds are considered to 

be ‘‘earmarked’’ only when there is 

‘‘clear documented evidence of acts by 

donors that resulted in their funds being 

used’’ as contributions.3 Should the 

Commission revisit the manner in 

which it enforces its earmarking 

regulations to encompass the ‘‘implicit 

agreements’’ addressed by the Court? 

In its discussion of the Commission’s 

earmarking regulations, the Court also 

considered 11 CFR 110.1(h). 

McCutcheon, 134 S. Ct. at 1453–56. That 

rule ‘‘governs the circumstances under 

which contributions to a candidate . . . 

must be aggregated with contributions 

to other political committees for 

purposes of the [Act’s] contribution 

limits.’’ Contribution and Expenditure 

Limitations and Prohibitions; 

Contributions by Persons and 

Multicandidate Political Committees, 52 

FR 760, 765 (Jan. 9, 1987). Section 

110.1(h) provides that a person may 

contribute both to a candidate for a 

given election and to a political 

committee that supports the same 

candidate for the same election so long 

as: (1) The political committee is not an 

authorized committee or a singlecandidate committee; (2) the contributor 

does not give with the knowledge that 

a substantial portion of the contribution 

will be contributed to, or expended on 

behalf of, that candidate for the same 

election; and (3) the contributor does 

not retain control over the funds. 11 

CFR 110.1(h).4 These criteria help to 

‘‘disarm’’ the risk of circumvention, 

McCutcheon, 134 S. Ct. at 1453, and the 

Court accordingly suggested that the 

Commission ‘‘might strengthen’’ 11 CFR 

110.1(h)(2) by ‘‘defining how many 

candidates a PAC must support in order 

to ensure that ‘a substantial portion’ of 

a donor’s contribution is not rerouted to 

a certain candidate.’’ Id. at 1459. Should 

the Commission make such a change to 

11 CFR 110.1(h), for example, by 

establishing a minimum number of 

candidates a PAC must support or by 

establishing a maximum percentage of a 

PAC’s funds that can go to a single 

candidate? 5 Would such a change 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62363 

Multicandidate Political Committees, 52 FR 760, 

765 (Jan. 9, 1987). 

unnecessarily limit the ability of PACs 

to associate with candidates? In light of 

the McCutcheon decision and 

discussion above, should the 

Commission revise any of its other 

earmarking rules? If so, how? 

Affiliation 

In addition to the earmarking 

provisions discussed above, the Court 

cited the anti-proliferation provisions of 

the Act and Commission regulations as 

mechanisms that limit circumvention of 

the base limits. McCutcheon, 134 S. Ct. 

at 1453–54 (citing former 2 U.S.C. 

441a(a)(5); 11 CFR 100.5(g)). 

Commission regulations provide that 

‘‘[a]ll committees . . . established, 

financed, maintained, or controlled, by 

the same . . . person, or group of 

persons . . . are affiliated,’’ and thus are 

subject to a single contribution limit. 11 

CFR 100.5(g)(2), 110.3(a)(1)(ii). These 

regulations include a number of 

affiliation factors, see 11 CFR 

100.5(g)(4), 110.3(a)(3), which the Court 

indicated the Commission could use— 

when presented with ‘‘suspicious 

patterns of PAC donations’’—to 

determine whether political committees 

are affiliated. See McCutcheon, 134 S. 

Ct. at 1454. Are the current affiliation 

factors at 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4) and 

110.3(a)(3) adequate to prevent 

circumvention of the base contribution 

limits? Should the Commission revisit 

its affiliation factors? If so, how? 

Joint Fundraising Committees 

The Act and Commission regulations 

authorize the creation of joint 

fundraising committees, see 52 U.S.C. 

30102(e)(3)(A)(ii) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

432(e)(3)(A)(ii)); 11 CFR 102.17, as well 

as the transfer of funds between and 

among participating committees. See 11 

CFR 102.6(a)(1)(iii), 110.3(c)(2). The 

Court noted that these rules could be 

revised to limit the opportunity for 

using joint fundraising committees to 

circumvent the base limits. See 

McCutcheon, 134 S. Ct. at 1458–59. The 

Court suggested, for instance, that joint 

fundraising committees could be limited 

in size, or that funds received by 

participants in a joint fundraising 

committee could be spent only ‘‘by their 

recipients.’’ Id. 

The Act includes the following 

provisions that can affect transfers 

between committees engaged in joint 

fundraising. Candidates may transfer 

contributions they receive, ‘‘without 

limitation, to a national, State, or local 

committee of a political party.’’ 52 

U.S.C. 30114(a)(4) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

439a(a)(4)). The limits on contributions 

found at 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1) and (2) 

(formerly 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1) and (2)) do 

not apply to transfers ‘‘between and 

among political committees which are 

national, State, district or local 

committees (including any subordinate 

committee thereof) of the same political 

party.’’ 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(4) (formerly 2 

U.S.C. 441a(a)(4)). The Act provides that 

contributions made by political 

committees that are ‘‘established or 

financed or maintained or controlled’’ 

by the same entity shall be considered 

to have been made by a single 

committee, except that this provision 

does not ‘‘limit transfers between 

political committees of funds raised 

through joint fundraising efforts.’’ 52 

U.S.C. 30116(a)(5)(A) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

441a(a)(5)(A)). 

In light of the McCutcheon decision 

and the statutory provisions described 

above, can or should the Commission 

revise its joint fundraising rules? If so, 

how? 

Disclosure 

The Supreme Court observed that 

disclosure requirements ‘‘may . . . 

‘deter actual corruption and avoid the 

appearance of corruption by exposing 

large contributions and expenditures to 

the light of publicity.’ ’’ McCutcheon, 

134 S. Ct. at 1459–60 (quoting Buckley 

v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 67 (1976)). 

Particularly due to developments in 

technology—primarily the internet—the 

Court observed that ‘‘disclosure offers 

much more robust protections against 

corruption’’ because ‘‘[r]eports and 

databases are available on the FEC’s 

Web site almost immediately after they 

are filed.’’ Id. at 1460. 

Given these developments in modern 

technology, what regulatory changes or 

other steps should the Commission take 

to further improve its collection and 

presentation of campaign finance data? 

On behalf of the Commission, 

Dated: October 9, 2014. 

Lee E. Goodman, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24660 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0752; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–079–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014–06– 

08, for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model 

DHC–8–100, –200, and –300 series 

airplanes. AD 2014–06–08 currently 

requires repetitive functional checks of 

the nose and main landing gear, and 

corrective actions if necessary; and also 

provides optional terminating action 

modification for the repetitive 

functional checks. Since we issued AD 

2014–06–08, we have determined that 

the optional terminating action 

modification is necessary to address the 

identified unsafe condition. This 

proposed AD would also require the 

terminating action modification. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

a false down-and-locked landing gear 

indication, which, on landing, could 

result in possible collapse of the landing 

gear. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, 

Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 

Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario 

M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375– 

4000; fax 416–375–4539; email 

thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.com. 

You may view this referenced service 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS