31430 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 

1 In 2003, the FEC began a Web site 

redevelopment project that resulted in a redesign of 

both the appearance of the site as well as the 

production process. The revised Web site went live 

in 2004 and the FEC continually seeks and receives 

input on how to improve the Web site. This 

initiative will provide the first forum for formal 

public comments to the Commission. 

Dated: June 11, 2009. 

Joan Harrigan Farrelley, 

Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–14997 Filed 6–30–09; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

[Notice 2009—10] 

Web Site and Internet Communications 

Improvement Initiative 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing and 

request for public comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Election 

Commission (the ‘‘FEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) has adopted an 

initiative to seek public comment on 

how to improve all aspects of how the 

Commission discloses information to 

the public on its Web site and through 

the use of Internet communications. 

While the FEC, which was first 

constituted in 1975, continually engages 

in ongoing efforts to improve all aspects 

of how the Commission discloses 

information through the Internet, with a 

primary focus on its Web site, the FEC 

has never before sought formal public 

comment on the means by which the 

Commission discloses information to 

the public.1 As part of these efforts, the 

Commission is seeking written 

comments and will conduct a public 

hearing on ways the Commission can 

improve how it communicates to the 

public using the Internet and, 

specifically, how it can improve its Web 

site to ensure that the FEC Web site is 

a state-of-the-art resource for disclosure 

of information to the public including 

(1) disclosure of campaign finance data, 

(2) information about Federal campaign 

finance laws, and (3) the actions of the 

Commission. 

The Commission seeks comment from 

all segments of the public, including 

representatives of political committees, 

Federal candidates and officeholders, 

members of the media, authors, students 

of all ages, members of the academic 

community, and advocacy groups. 

In addition to comments from the 

public, the Commission specifically 

seeks comment from those with relevant 

technical expertise, including technical 

advisors, consultants, researchers, other 

governmental and non-governmental 

agencies, non-profit entities and 

commercial vendors to assist with the 

Commission’s efforts to improve the 

how it uses the Internet to disclose 

information to the public and 

particularly efforts to improve the FEC 

Web site. Such advice and information 

may include recommendations to the 

Commission for (1) expanding the Web 

site’s disclosure features, (2) improving 

the information available on the Web 

site and ways in which that information 

is organized, and (3) maximizing the 

benefit of current and anticipated 

technology related to Web site services. 

The Commission’s policy regarding 

which documents are placed on the 

public record from closed enforcement, 

administrative fines and alternative 

dispute resolution cases is outside the 

scope of this initiative, and the 

Commission is specifically not seeking 

comments with respect to this issue. See 

Statement of Policy Regarding 

Disclosure of Closed Enforcement and 

Related Files, 68 FR 70426 (Dec. 18, 

2003). The Commission plans to 

conduct a separate hearing with full 

opportunity for public comment on the 

issue later in the year. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 21, 2009. A public hearing 

will be held on Wednesday and 

Thursday, July 29–30, 2009, from 10 

a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Federal Election 

Commission, 999 E Street, NW., 9th 

floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC 

20463. Anyone seeking to testify at the 

hearing must file written comments by 

the due date and must include in the 

written comments a request to testify. 

Format for Comments and Addresses: 

All comments must be in writing, must 

be addressed to Mr. Robert Hickey, Staff 

Director, 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 improvefecinternet@fec.gov. If 

e-mail comments include an 

attachment, the attachment must be in 

the Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft 

Word (.doc) format. Faxed comments 

must be sent to (202) 208–3333. Paper 

comments must be sent to Mr. Robert 

Hickey, Staff Director, 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 all comments on 

its Web site at http://www.fec.gov/ 

pages/hearings/internethearing.shtml 

shortly after they are received. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Biersack, Special Assistant to the 

Staff Director for Data Integration, 999 E 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463, 

(202) 694–1658 or (800) 424–9530. The 

Commission’s Web site can be accessed 

at http://www.fec.gov. Technical 

information related to the FEC’s Web 

site, including hardware, software, 

capacity and functionalities can be 

found at http://www.fec.gov/pages/ 

hearings/internethearing.shtml. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Hearing Goals 

The FEC is an independent regulatory 

agency with responsibility for 

administering, enforcing, defending and 

interpreting the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (2 

U.S.C. 431 et seq., available at http:// 

www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf) (FECA). 

The Commission is also responsible for 

administering the Federal public 

funding programs for Presidential 

campaigns and party conventions. This 

responsibility includes certifying and 

auditing all participating candidates and 

committees, and enforcement of the 

public funding laws. The Commission 

strives to discharge its statutory 

mandate by (1) facilitating public 

disclosure of campaign finance activity, 

(2) providing information and policy 

guidance to the public, media, political 

committees, Federal candidates and 

officeholders, and election officials on 

the FECA and Commission regulations, 

(3) encouraging voluntary compliance 

with all of the FECA’s requirements, 

and (4) investigating alleged violations 

of those requirements and seeking civil 

penalties and other remedies when 

necessary to enforce the law. 

The FEC’s Web site is increasingly the 

Commission’s primary vehicle for 

sharing with the public campaign 

finance disclosure data, educational 

materials related to Federal campaign 

finance laws, the development and 

implementation of new rules and 

regulations, Advisory Opinions, and 

closed enforcement actions. 

Accordingly, the FEC’s Web site and 

how the Commission uses the Internet 

to disclose information to the public is 

critical to the Commission’s mission. 

In 2008, the Commission received 

over 5.2 million visits to its Web site, or 

approximately 14,200 per day, an 

increase of over 50% from the year 

before. During the 24-month 2008 

election cycle, the Commission 

received, and disclosed on its Web site, 

approximately 140,000 financial 

disclosure reports from nearly 8,000 

political committees. These reports 

contained the equivalent of 11.7 million 

pages of financial data, disclosing 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 31431 

approximately $8.3 billion in political 

contributions and spending related to 

Federal elections. 

The Commission anticipates that the 

trend of increased traffic coming to the 

Commission’s Web site will continue as 

more users seek access to information 

about the Federal campaign finance 

laws and about how Federal campaigns 

are financed. To improve the Web site’s 

usefulness to the public, the 

Commission is seeking, through this 

proceeding, ways to provide the public 

with more timely information, as well as 

ways to make its Web site more userfriendly, more educational, more 

analytical, more accessible, and more 

interesting. 

Among the topics on which the 

Commission requests comment are 

those discussed below. The list is not 

exhaustive, and the Commission 

welcomes input on ways in which the 

Commission can make improvements to 

the means by which the Commission 

discloses information to the public 

through the Internet, and in particular 

on the Commission’s Web site. 

However, as indicated above, the 

Commission’s policy regarding which 

documents are placed on the public 

record from closed enforcement, 

administrative fines and alternative 

dispute resolution cases is outside the 

scope of this initiative but will be the 

subject of a separate hearing with full 

opportunity for public comment later in 

the year. 

II. Introduction 

The Commission recognizes that 

having an abundance of information 

available on its Web site is of little use 

if the information is not organized in a 

way that makes it easily accessible and 

understandable. Accordingly, it is vital 

to the public interest that the 

Commission’s Web site be written and 

organized from the point of view of a 

potential user who seeks information 

from an agency. Although the agency’s 

Web site must be citizen-focused, with 

a general public audience in mind, it 

must, at the same time, provide 

information to specialized audiences 

about specific areas of interest. In each 

case, whether a visitor to the 

Commission’s Web site seeks general 

information or very specific data, the 

Web site should be organized in a 

visitor-friendly, intuitive fashion. 

Information should be easy to extract 

and it should be presented in a clear, 

logical and appealing manner that is 

easy to read and understand whether 

displayed on the screen, or when 

printed in hardcopy format. 

III. The Primary Users of the 

Commission’s Web Site 

In order to ensure that the 

Commission’s Web site adequately 

serves those who seek information from 

the Commission, the Commission must 

properly identify who its primary users 

or viewers are, including potential users 

who access campaign finance 

information from other sources either by 

choice or because they do not know 

about the Commission’s Web site. These 

users may include members of the 

general public, prospective voters, 

prospective Federal candidates and 

officeholders, representatives of 

registered political committees such as 

committee treasurers, members of the 

media, including bloggers and the more 

specialized trade media, and members 

of the academic community, including 

policy institutes and advocacy groups. 

Users also include State and local 

election officials and officeholders, 

members of the legal profession, 

teachers and students, as well as other 

academics and librarians. The 

Commission seeks comment from each 

of these diverse audiences on whether 

the Commission’s Web site is presently 

meeting their specific needs and about 

ways in which the Commission uses the 

Internet to disclose information to the 

public and the Commission’s Web site 

can be improved to better serve these 

needs. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether there may be 

other audiences in addition to those 

listed above that may seek information 

from the Commission’s Web site. If so, 

how well does the current Web site 

serve those audiences, and what 

improvements can be made to serve 

them better? 

IV. What Tasks Do the Commission’s 

Primary Customers Perform Most Often 

on the Web Site? 

Different audiences seeking 

information from the Commission’s Web 

site search for distinct categories of 

information and perform diverse tasks 

when accessing the Web site. For 

instance, members of the general public 

might be seeking a range of information 

that could span from accessing 

contribution and expenditure data 

related to a recent or upcoming election 

to seeking information about the $3 IRS 

income tax form check-off that provides 

funding for the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund. A political committee 

might seek more specialized 

information such as guidance regarding 

the Commission’s software package that 

committees use to electronically file 

their campaign finance disclosure 

reports or seek information about the 

laws that are applicable to the 

committee’s activities. A political 

committee also might seek information 

about the requirements or procedures 

for filing an advisory opinion request 

with the Commission and guidance 

about whether a question they have is 

appropriate for an advisory opinion 

request. Similarly, a political committee 

or a member of the public might seek 

information about the requirements or 

procedures for filing a complaint 

alleging a violation of the campaign 

finance laws or regulations. Members of 

the media may be interested in an 

entirely different set of information, 

such as background on the FECA or 

perhaps news about the Commission’s 

most recent actions. 

The Commission seeks public 

comment on what tasks or operations 

are conducted by visitors to the 

Commission’s Web site and specifically 

about how different audiences may seek 

to perform these functions differently. 

V. How Can the Commission Improve 

the Way Its Web Site Is Organized? 

The Commission has endeavored to 

design and organize the information on 

its Web site in a cogent, rational, and 

intuitive way. The Commission seeks 

comment from users of the 

Commission’s Web site about the visitor 

experience. Is navigation of the 

Commission’s Web site intuitive? If not, 

in what specific ways can it be more 

intuitive? Are the ways that users 

navigate each page on the FEC’s Web 

site adequately consistent across the 

Web site? If not, where do these 

inconsistencies exist? For example, do 

similar items on different pages appear 

in the same location and have the same 

appearance and wording? Do navigation 

items of the same type appear the same 

way and perform the same functions 

across the Web site? 

Do users consider the Commission’s 

current homepage to be sufficiently 

useful? If not, in what ways could it 

become more useful? Are visitors easily 

able to find what they are seeking? The 

Commission’s current homepage is 

relatively static with almost no content 

on the homepage changing from day-today. The only dynamic content on the 

homepage is a crawl across the bottom 

of the page, which is changed, on 

average, every other week to announce 

the latest important news from the 

Commission. In addition, the homepage 

includes interactive maps to provide 

users with immediate access to 

disclosure data. Are these disclosure 

maps appropriately located on the 

homepage? Is the homepage too static? 

Should the homepage list ‘‘headlines,’’ 

‘‘hot topics,’’ or ‘‘most requested 

31432 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 

information’’ that could be updated 

daily or weekly? Or is it best to leave the 

homepage uncluttered, serving as a toplevel directory that allows viewers to 

access information though available 

links? 

The Commission’s Web site is 

currently organized by the type of 

information that is available, such as 

‘‘Campaign Finance Reports and Data’’ 

or ‘‘Law and Regulations.’’ Is the 

information available on the 

Commission’s Web site organized in a 

logical sequence? If not, how can it be 

better organized? Are visitors easily able 

to ascertain what to do next in their 

task? 

a. Portals 

In contrast to the manner in which the 

Commission’s Web site is currently 

organized, should the Commission’s 

homepage serve as a ‘‘start task’’ page, 

asking visitors what task they seek to 

perform, which would then take visitors 

to a task-based portal specifically 

tailored to the user’s specific task? If so, 

what should be the topics of these ‘‘start 

task’’ pages? Alternatively, should the 

Commission’s Web site be organized by 

categories of frequent users and have 

separate portal pages for different 

audiences based on those visitors’ 

needs? Or should the Web site first ask 

the user what category of user he or she 

falls under (e.g., member of the general 

public, political committee 

representative, Federal officeholder) and 

then offer the user a focused portal 

based on the types of tasks most 

frequently performed by users in that 

category? Is there sufficiently different 

content to justify dividing the Web site 

into isolated user-portals? What is the 

likelihood that organizing the Web site 

in this way could lead to confusion 

among new or infrequent visitors? What 

other costs might such a reorganization 

entail? 

1. The General Public 

Should there be a portal page for 

members of the general public? If so, 

what information or utilities should be 

available on such a page? What links to 

other information would be most 

helpful for members of the general 

public or others seeking general 

campaign finance information? 

2. Political Committee Representatives 

Should there be a portal page 

designed specifically for those seeking 

information on behalf of a registered 

political committee, such as committee 

treasurers, that would offer direct access 

to the resources that are most useful for 

committee treasurers and other 

committee representatives? If so, what 

resources should be included on such a 

page? Should a portal page for political 

committee representatives include a 

link to a focused set of frequently asked 

questions (FAQs)? Should there be 

separate portal pages for different types 

of political committees such as party 

committees, corporate or labor 

organization connected committees 

(which are often referred to as Separate 

Segregated Funds or Political Action 

Committees), or nonconnected 

committees? 

3. Federal Officeholders and Prospective 

Candidates 

Should there be a portal page 

designed specifically for Federal 

officeholders and prospective Federal 

candidates? If so, what resources should 

be included on such a page? Should 

there be a separate portal page for 

candidates, different from one for 

current officeholders? Should there be 

different portal pages for House, Senate 

and Presidential candidates and 

officeholders? If so, what different 

content should be on each of these 

pages? Should a portal page for Federal 

officeholders and prospective Federal 

candidates include a link to a focused 

set of frequently asked questions 

(FAQs)? Should such a portal page 

provide procedural guidance for 

persons, committees or other entities 

who are subject to FEC proceedings 

such as audits and enforcement actions? 

4. Media 

Should there be a portal page 

designed specifically for members of the 

media? If so, what resources should be 

included on a media portal page? 

Should there be a separate portal page 

for the general media, different from one 

for the trade media? Should there be a 

separate portal page for members of the 

foreign media? If so, what different 

content should be on each of these 

pages? Should a portal page for 

members of the media include a link to 

a focused set of frequently asked 

questions (FAQs)? 

5. Academic Community 

Should there be a portal page 

designed specifically for members of the 

academic community? If so, what 

resources should be included on an 

academic community portal page? 

Should there be a separate portal page 

for students, different from one for 

professors? Should there be a separate 

portal page for policy institutes? If so, 

what different content should be on 

each of these pages? Should a portal 

page for members of the academic 

community include a link to a focused 

set of frequently asked questions 

(FAQs)? 

Are there audiences other than those 

outlined above for whom the 

Commission should consider designing 

a separate portal? If so, for which 

audiences should the Commission 

design such portals? Alternatively, 

should the information be organized in 

some other way? 

VI. User-Experience/User-Friendliness 

a. Plain Language 

Best practices for government Web 

sites mandate that a typical user of the 

Commission’s Web site should be able 

to understand the Web site content after 

only one reading—the content should be 

in plain language. See http:// 

www.plainlanguage.gov. Ideally, users 

should not need to spend time 

‘‘translating’’ difficult, wordy text. 

Plain-language writing saves users time 

and reduces the burden placed on the 

public. The Commission has worked to 

meet these goals and seeks comment on 

whether the language used on the 

Commission’s Web site is accessible and 

easy to read. Can first-time or novice 

users understand information on the 

Web site easily? If not, please provide 

specific examples from the 

Commission’s Web site of language that 

is not easily understood. 

b. Accessibility to Users With Special 

Needs 

Should content on the Commission’s 

Web site be revised in order to make the 

content more accessible to users with 

special needs, such as persons with 

disabilities? Is information on the 

Commission’s Web site easily accessible 

through browse aloud text readers for 

visually impaired users? Should the 

Web site have alternative pages for users 

with low literacy or for foreign-language 

speakers? 

c. Help Functions 

Another important aspect of whether 

a Web site is sufficiently user-friendly is 

the directions provided to users when 

they cannot find the information they 

are looking for. The Commission’s Web 

site currently has pages providing a list 

of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

and ‘‘Quick Answers,’’ to help users 

find the information they are seeking. 

Are these sections of the Web site 

useful? Should the Web site have a 

special help section that would guide 

users to the information they are 

seeking? Would a ‘‘first-time user 

guide’’ be helpful? What information 

might a first time user guide include 

that would make it different from the 

FAQ? 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 31433 

Should the Web site have a ‘‘contact 

us’’ section that would allow users to 

either send an e-mail to Commission 

staff or provide a staff telephone 

directory for users who are still not able 

to access the information they seek? 

Web site users can also send questions 

and feedback about the Web site 

through e-mail communications to 

‘‘Webmanager@fec.gov.’’ Is this service 

sufficiently responsive and informative? 

Should questions and feedback be made 

public? 

Is the Commission sufficiently 

receptive to suggestions made through 

e-mails and phone calls? Have those 

who have made comments or 

suggestions received responses from the 

Commission? Have the responses been 

satisfactory? If not, why not? 

Should the Commission develop a 

blog to facilitate a conversation about 

the substance and techniques used by 

staff to disclose campaign finance data? 

Should the Web site host other blogs or 

user groups? If so, what topics should 

they cover? Should the Web site host 

user groups where users can 

interactively discuss substantive areas 

of campaign finance law and 

Commission procedures? 

VII. Search Engines 

a. General Search Engine 

The Commission maintains various 

search engines on its Web site. The 

general search engine (‘‘General Search 

Engine’’) is located on the Commission’s 

homepage and returns pages and 

documents from all portions of the 

Commission’s Web site other than the 

contents of three self-contained 

databases (i.e., the disclosure database, 

the Advisory Opinion database, and the 

enforcement database), which can be 

accessed through the specialized search 

engines that are discussed below. In 

addition to a basic search function 

which allows users to conduct a simple 

word search, the General Search Engine 

also has an ‘‘advanced search’’ function 

that allows users to enter search terms 

or phrases and find results with (1) all 

of the words, (2) the exact phrase, (3) 

any of the words, as well as results 

without a specific search term or phrase. 

b. Specialized Search Engines 

In addition to the General Search 

Engine, the Commission’s Web site 

contains three specialized search 

engines that allow users to search only 

within a specific portion of the 

Commission’s Web site. 

1. Disclosure Database Search Engine 

The disclosure database search engine 

(‘‘Disclosure Database Search Engine’’) 

allows a user to search only within the 

contribution and expenditure data filed 

by registered political committees. The 

Disclosure Database Search Engine 

includes a search for summary data for 

candidates and Political Action 

Committees/Party Committees, as well 

as searches for detailed data for 

individual contributors, political 

committees, and candidates. 

2. Advisory Opinion Search Engine 

Another specialized search engine 

allows users to limit their search to 

information about Commission 

Advisory Opinions. Specifically, the 

Advisory Opinion Search Engine (‘‘AO 

Search Engine’’) allows users to search 

by (1) search terms, including words 

and phrases, (2) advisory opinion 

number, (3) requestor name and (4) year. 

Additionally, the advanced search 

function of the AO Search Engine 

allows users to search using more 

specific criteria. 

3. Enforcement Query System 

Finally, the Commission’s Web site 

contains a third specialized search 

engine, known as the Commission’s 

Enforcement Query System (‘‘EQS’’). 

This system allows a user to search for 

information about completed 

Commission enforcement cases. 

Specifically, EQS allows users to search 

within a database containing documents 

related to completed Commission 

enforcement cases (including 

complaints, responses, conciliation 

agreements and Commissioner 

statements of reasons) by key words or 

by information about the cases (e.g., 

case number, name of respondent, name 

of complainant, statute or regulation 

alleged to have been violated). 

c. Search Engine Improvements 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether the Commission’s search 

engines are sufficiently intuitive and 

responsive. If not, in what ways can the 

Commission’s search engines be 

modified to make them more useful? 

Are the features of the Commission’s 

search engines sufficiently 

sophisticated, robust and flexible to 

offer suggested choices to a user of 

words, spellings and phrases based on 

a user’s query? Are the ‘‘advanced 

search’’ functions useful to viewers who 

wish to conduct more refined, focused 

searches to achieve more relevant 

results? Are search results displayed in 

an easy-to-read format both when 

displayed on the screen and when 

printed in hardcopy format? If not, in 

what ways can the visual and printed 

presentation of the materials be made 

more useful and appear more 

professional? Are search results relevant 

and comprehensive? Are the most 

relevant results listed first? Is there 

adequate help available on the Web site 

to assist visitors who are unfamiliar 

with or unskilled at using search 

technology? Do the search engines 

produce swift results? The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether the 

Commission’s search engines should 

produce a link for the output of each 

search that users could then include in 

e-mails and on their own Web sites that 

would allow others to instantly access 

the results of a search. 

Should a user be able to make a single 

query that would simultaneously search 

through the entire Web site, including 

the specialized databases? Should a user 

be able to selectively choose which 

databases are accessed through a given 

query? For instance, should a user be 

able to simultaneously query 

information only from the Advisory 

Opinion database and the Enforcement 

database with a single search? What 

search functions would be most useful 

to users? 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on whether the Commission’s Web site 

should have other specialized search 

engines in addition to the Disclosure 

Database Search Engine, the AO Search 

Engine and EQS. If so, what information 

should be accessible through such 

specialized search engines? For 

example, should the Web site have a 

specialized search engine devoted to 

Commission regulations and rulemaking 

documents such as Notices of Proposed 

Rulemakings and Explanations and 

Justifications? Should there be a 

specialized search engine devoted to 

information and documents related 

solely to the Commission’s litigation 

matters? 

VIII. Commission Function and 

Organization 

The Commission’s Web site has an 

‘‘About the FEC’’ section that includes 

information about the FECA, the 

Commission’s mission and history, and 

an organizational chart including a 

description of each of the offices and 

divisions within the Commission. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

its Web site provides adequate 

information about the Commission’s 

jurisdiction, mission, and internal 

structure. If not, what additional 

information should be included? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether the Web site provides adequate 

information about how the Commission 

is organized (i.e., the responsibilities of 

each Office and Division within the 

Commission). What information do 

other Federal agencies provide on their 

31434 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 

Web sites about jurisdiction, mission 

and organization? Is this information 

useful? If yes, how so? Are there other 

Federal or non-Federal government 

agencies, or other non-governmental 

entities that maintain Web sites that 

could serve as a model for the FEC? If 

so, which agencies and what aspects of 

their Web sites? Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Web site should contain a staff 

phone and e-mail directory to make it 

easier for the public to contact 

Commission staff directly. 

IX. Data Accessibility 

a. Current Interactive Maps 

The FECA requires accurate and 

comprehensive public disclosure by 

Federal candidates and political 

committees of all contributions and 

expenditures. Information about these 

contributions and expenditures is 

included in the Commission’s 

disclosure database along with millions 

of other itemized disbursements, 

receipts and other payments. 

Since 2007, the Commission 

homepage at www.fec.gov has included 

interactive maps, which provide users 

with immediate access to contribution 

and expenditure information for 

Presidential, Senate and House 

candidates. Through these maps, users 

can access the amount of funds raised 

by State, cash-on-hand, and the 

distribution of contributions by amount. 

Furthermore, users can access lists of 

contributors by name, city, and amounts 

of contributions within the first three 

digits of any zip code. Users can also 

obtain a detailed list of information 

about how candidates spend their 

money, including the payee name, 

purpose, date and amount of each 

campaign expenditure. Although the 

Web site allows users to sort the 

detailed list of expenditures by each 

category listed above, the Web site does 

not currently provide separate 

aggregated amounts for each category. 

For instance, a user cannot access an 

aggregated number for the amount a 

candidate has spent on political 

advertisements. Would the addition of 

this feature be useful? 

The House and Senate map allows the 

user to select candidates for comparison 

using bar charts to display such 

financial categories as contribution and 

disbursement totals, debts and cash on 

hand. It also presents itemized 

contributions and disbursements by 

category and includes links to images of 

reports filed by the candidate and the 

candidate’s committees. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether these interactive maps are 

useful. How can they be improved? Are 

there other types of interactive maps or 

charts that users would find interesting 

or educational? In what other ways can 

campaign finance data be made 

available in a more user-friendly and 

interactive way? 

b. Sorting of Data 

The Commission seeks comment on 

ways in which the Web site should 

allow users to sort the campaign finance 

data. For example, should the Web site 

allow users to sort the data (1) by date 

or a range of dates, (2) by types of 

committees (e.g., candidate committees, 

party committees and corporate and 

labor organization connected 

committees), (3) by candidate, (4) by 

contributor (e.g., name, address, zip 

code and employer), or (5) 

alphabetically? What other ways should 

the Web site allow users to search for or 

sort the data? 

The Commission is aware that other 

Web sites also provide access to the 

FEC’s campaign finance data. For 

example, some of these Web sites permit 

users to sort contribution data into how 

much has been raised by a candidate or 

political committee over time, such as 

on a quarterly, monthly, weekly or daily 

basis. For expenditures, some of these 

Web sites allow users to sort campaign 

spending into categories, such as 

administrative costs, campaign 

expenses, fundraising costs and media 

costs. One Web site allows users to sort 

contributor information in a number of 

ways, including by name, address, zip 

code, employer and contribution 

amount (e.g., $200 or less). 

Additionally, this Web site allows a user 

to sort contributor information into top 

donors, top soft money donors, and top 

Political Action Committee (PAC) 

categories. This same Web site allows 

users to sort data into other categories, 

such as candidate-to-candidate giving, 

quality of disclosure and source of 

funds (e.g., individual contributions, 

PAC contributions and candidate selffinancing). Other Web sites identify top 

contributors, top recipients, top 

contributing states and top bundlers. 

Should the FEC’s Web site allow users 

to sort campaign finance data in ways 

similar to these other Web sites? If yes, 

which sorting options would be useful 

and why? Do these other Web sites 

allow users to sort the data in any other 

useful ways? If so, in what ways and 

should the Commission’s Web site also 

provide these functions? 

Should the Commission’s Web site 

allow users to access election-related 

information other than campaign 

finance data, such as the number of 

votes a candidate received in a prior 

election? After each Federal election the 

Commission has historically compiled 

and published election results in a 

document entitled Federal Elections, 

which is made available on the Web 

site. See http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/ 

electionresults.shtml. Is it appropriate 

for the Commission’s Web site to 

provide access to election-related data 

that are outside the Commission’s direct 

jurisdiction (e.g., studies and 

government reports other than campaign 

finance data)? If not, why not? 

c. Compilation, Presentation and 

Analysis of Data 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on ways in which the Commission 

should facilitate compilation, 

presentation and analysis of the 

campaign finance data. What types of 

additional analysis of the data would be 

useful? Should the Commission provide 

tools for users to be able to generate 

their own graphs, charts and maps 

based on the data they have accessed? 

Should the Commission permit the 

storage and presentation of search or 

sort results? Additionally, should the 

results from the most popular queries be 

presented on the Web site for others to 

view? If yes, should these queries be 

posted anonymously or should the user 

be asked for permission before his or her 

query is posted? If the Commission’s 

Web site allows users to access electionrelated information that is outside the 

Commission’s direct jurisdiction, such 

as the number of votes a candidate 

received in a prior election, should the 

Commission allow users to sort these 

data interactively and facilitate 

compilation, presentation and analysis 

of these data in relation to campaign 

finance data? For instance, should the 

Commission’s Web site allow users to 

calculate the amount spent by a 

candidate on a campaign relative to the 

number of votes that candidate received 

in the election? 

d. Availability of Raw Data 

The FEC currently provides the ability 

to download in bulk form, on a daily 

basis, campaign finance data from all 

electronic filings received earlier that 

day. Is this process useful? Are there 

changes or enhancements to this process 

that would be useful? For example, 

should the Commission provide ‘‘realtime’’ access to the bulk data as soon as 

it is filed throughout the day? Also, 

should the Commission allow users to 

download only a designated portion of 

the data? 

The Commission also currently makes 

selected raw data available for 

download via File Transfer Protocol 

(FTP). These files reflect both ‘‘as 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 31435 

amended’’ snapshots of itemized 

individual contributions to committees 

and receipts and disbursements where 

both parties to the transaction are 

registered with the FEC. Is this general 

approach valuable? If not, what other 

alternatives are available? Does the 

benefit that comes from reducing 

duplication and other complexities 

inherent in the raw data the 

Commission receives justify the time 

delays required for the FEC to do this 

work? Are there other categories of 

financial activity that should be 

included in this system—e.g., details of 

spending, debts, etc.? Should specific 

types of activity (like independent 

expenditures or electioneering 

communications) be available as 

separate files rather than as part of a 

larger set? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

what improvements can be made to the 

methods that the Commission uses in 

making raw campaign finance data 

available through its Web site. For 

example, are the data currently available 

in an adequate format that permits users 

to aggregate, segregate, or otherwise 

manipulate and analyze the data? 

Should the Commission develop a 

different format for the data that is more 

consistent with current data 

dissemination practices such as XML 

(Extensible Markup Language) or JSON 

(JavaScript Object Notation)? Also, 

should the Commission provide opensource public Application Programming 

Interfaces (APIs) so that other Web sites 

can download the data more easily? In 

what other ways can the Commission 

facilitate the syndication by other Web 

sites of data yielded from a search? 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on what improvements can be made to 

the way the Commission makes data 

related to amendments to committee 

reports available to the public. Are those 

who access campaign finance reports 

able to easily separate data in reports 

that have been amended by a reporting 

committee from the data contained in 

the report that was originally filed? If 

not, what would be a better and more 

understandable way to present that 

information? 

e. Data Storage 

Does the Commission need to 

restructure the way that campaign 

finance data are stored? For example, 

although a complete set of bulk raw data 

is available for download, the 

Commission’s official COBOL-based 

database is currently published in a 

fixed width format that only allows for 

up to 35 characters in the column 

containing data about each contributor’s 

occupation and employer. In other 

words, a user searching campaign 

finance data on the Commission’s Web 

site will only see the first 35 characters 

of information (which includes letter, 

numbers, symbols, as well as spaces 

between words) about a contributor’s 

occupation and employer and, as a 

result, this information is often 

truncated, thereby providing incomplete 

information to the public. One observer 

estimates that this limitation causes a 

loss of over 20% of the occupation and 

employer information that should be 

otherwise accessible through the 

Commission’s disclosure database. See 

Federal Election Commission, Hearing 

on Agency Practices and Procedures 

(Jan. 15, 2009) (statement of Clay 

Johnson, Sunlight Foundation), 

available at http://www.fec.gov/law/ 

policy/enforcement/2009/ 

01141509hearingtranscript.pdf. 

Although the Commission anticipates 

releasing a software update shortly that 

will resolve the truncation issue 

described above, are there other 

examples of information that is missing 

or incomplete in the Commission’s 

disclosure database? The Commission 

invites comment on ways the 

Commission could provide the public 

with access to fully complete disclosure 

data. 

f. Timeliness of Data Availability 

Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission’s 

data are made available in a timely 

manner. Although electronically filed 

disclosure reports are available to the 

public immediately after they are filed, 

currently the data contained in those 

reports are reviewed by Commission 

staff before they are made available 

through queries and data files on the 

Commission’s Web site. This staff 

review, which standardizes the data 

through such steps as (1) assigning 

transaction codes, (2) splitting joint 

contributions reported from married 

couples, and (3) adding missing 

committee identification numbers, can 

take anywhere from a few days to a few 

weeks to complete. Should the data be 

made available to the public even before 

the Commission staff has had time to 

conduct its review? What risks exist in 

releasing potentially inaccurate or 

incomplete data? What are the 

implications of releasing unreviewed 

data followed by a second release of the 

same data in a modified format? Are 

there risks of confusion with such an 

approach? If so, what measures could be 

implemented to avoid such confusion? 

X. Educational Materials 

The FEC publishes various types of 

educational materials, all of which can 

be accessed on the Commission’s Web 

site. These materials include (1) 

brochures (brief summaries of particular 

provisions of the law or descriptions of 

the Commission’s programs and 

procedures), (2) Campaign Guides 

(compliance manuals for committees 

registered with the Commission), and 

(3) The Record (the Commission’s 

monthly newsletter). The Commission 

also maintains a ‘‘Tips for Treasurers’’ 

page on its Web site with timely tips 

and reminders to help political 

committee treasurers meet their 

obligations under the law. The 

Commission also offers an electronic 

subscription service, FECMail (available 

at http://www.fec.gov/info/ 

fecmaill.shtml), which provides 

subscribers with personalized e-mail 

updates on the latest Commission news 

and information. 

a. Brochures 

The Commission publishes several 

educational brochures all of which are 

made available to the public free of 

charge. Electronic versions of these 

brochures are also available on the 

Commission’s Web site. These 

brochures offer brief summaries of 

particular provisions of the law or 

describe FEC programs and procedures. 

These brochures are available in both 

HTML and PDF formats at http:// 

www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/ 

brochures.shtml and examples of 

covered topics include (1) Advisory 

Opinions, (2) Coordinated 

Communications and Independent 

Expenditures, and (3) Public Funding of 

Presidential Elections. The HTML 

versions of the brochures include 

interactive links for cited statutes, 

regulations and Advisory Opinions. 

The Commission seeks comments on 

whether both the printed versions and 

the electronic versions of the brochures 

are user-friendly and ways in which 

they can be improved. Should the 

Commission continue to publish both 

printed and electronic versions of the 

brochures? The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should develop brochures on additional 

topics and, if so, which topics should be 

covered. 

b. Campaign Guides 

The Commission publishes campaign 

guides, which serve as compliance 

manuals for Federal political 

committees. Electronic versions of these 

guides are available at 

http://www.fec.gov/info/ 

publications.shtml#guides. Separate 

guides are available for (1) 

Congressional Candidates and 

Committees, (2) Political Party 

31436 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 

Committees, (3) Nonconnected 

Committees and (4) Corporations and 

Labor Organizations. The electronic 

versions of these guides include all 

supplements to date, summarizing 

relevant post-publication rules and 

opinions. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether the printed 

versions and electronic versions of these 

guides are sufficiently educational, 

understandable, and presented in a 

user-friendly manner and, if not, how 

they can be improved. For example, 

should important terms be linked by 

hypertext to other sources available on 

the Web site, such as links to the text 

of a cited rule, an Advisory Opinion or 

court decision? In what other ways can 

these guides be improved? Should the 

Commission continue to publish both 

printed and electronic versions of the 

guides? More generally, does the Web 

site contain sufficient guidance about 

complying with the Commission’s 

reporting requirements? Does the Web 

site contain sufficient information about 

complying with contribution limits and 

other provisions of the FECA? In not, 

what additional information would be 

useful? 

c. The Record Newsletter 

The FEC publishes a monthly 

newsletter, The Record, which is 

automatically sent electronically to all 

political committees and is also 

available through the Web site. The 

Record is designed to be a useful 

resource for anyone interested in the 

most recent developments in Federal 

campaign finance law and at the 

Commission. Each month, The Record 

contains the latest information on 

reporting deadlines, regulations, 

advisory opinions, court decisions and 

other FEC actions. Can The Record be 

improved and, if so, how? Is The Record 

a useful resource for all of the audiences 

that access the Commission’s Web site? 

Should the Commission produce a 

different version of The Record for 

different audiences? For instance, 

should there be an edition of The 

Record specifically targeted to 

representatives of political committees 

and a different edition targeted to 

members of the general public? 

d. Commission Calendar 

The Commission’s homepage 

currently provides a link to a 

Commission calendar that includes 

information about Commission public 

meeting dates, Commission hearing 

dates, significant filing deadlines and 

educational programs, as well as other 

information. Should the Commission 

include other categories of information? 

If so, what information should be 

included? For example, should the 

calendar include significant dates 

related to pending litigation including a 

schedule of oral arguments? 

e. Materials for the Media 

Currently, the media section of the 

FEC’s Web site is designed as a tool to 

help members of the media find 

information quickly and easily. This 

section contains the Commission’s latest 

press releases and campaign finance 

information, as well as background 

information and reference materials. 

This section also contains a link to a 

‘‘Weekly Digest’’ that includes items 

such as (1) public actions taken by the 

Commission for the previous week, (2) 

interesting events occurring at the 

Commission regardless of formal actions 

being taken, (3) important items of 

litigation, and (4) a schedule for the 

upcoming weeks. Users may also 

subscribe to the FECMail service to 

receive alerts through e-mail when new 

press releases are posted. The 

Commission seeks comment on ways in 

which the media page of its Web site 

and the press release subscriber service 

can be improved. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

all of these educational materials. Are 

these materials useful and, specifically, 

are they useful for members of the 

general public? If not, how can the 

Commission make the materials more 

useful? Are these materials updated in 

a timely manner? Should these 

materials cover additional topics that 

would help the general public better 

understand the campaign finance laws 

and the role of the Commission? 

Should the Commission create 

educational materials unique to its Web 

site? For instance, the Commission is 

developing e-learning content for its 

Web site, including instructional videos 

and interactive presentations intended 

to supplement the FEC’s existing 

educational materials. By offering this 

content on the Commission’s Web site 

and via YouTube, the Commission 

hopes to expand access to its 

educational materials and thereby 

increase compliance with Federal 

campaign finance laws. The 

Commission seeks comment on what 

topics would be most useful for its elearning materials and what is the best 

way to make these materials available to 

the public. 

Additionally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 

should create other interactive materials 

that would permit the public to submit 

questions through its Web site, for 

example, using live chat. Should the 

Web site host a chat room for viewers 

to engage each other on issues related to 

the FEC and campaign finance? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it should provide other types of 

educational materials. For example, the 

Commission currently sends a weekly 

‘‘Tip for Treasurers’’ to subscribers 

though an RSS (Really Simple 

Syndication) feed. Should the 

Commission make available additional 

RSS feeds? Should the Commission post 

answers to questions submitted by the 

public through its Web site? 

Additionally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether it should 

proactively use social media in order to 

reach new audiences and engage the 

public? For example, should the 

Commission use Facebook, Wikipedia, 

Twitter or Second Life? Would the use 

of such social media assist the 

Commission in its educational 

outreach? If yes, how should the 

Commission use these social media? 

XI. Educational Programs 

The Commission sponsors a number 

of conferences each year, both in the 

Washington, DC area and around the 

country, where Commissioners and FEC 

staff conduct a variety of instructional 

workshops on campaign finance law. 

Each conference has programs that are 

tailored to a specific audience (e.g., 

House and Senate campaigns or 

corporations and their PACs). Typically, 

the Commission sponsors five of these 

conferences each year and the 

conferences often sell out well in 

advance. Should the Commission hold 

more conferences each year? Should the 

conferences be held in additional 

locations around the country? If so, 

where? 

Should the Commission make audio 

or video recordings of these conferences 

available through its Web site? Would 

participation by conference attendees be 

affected by recording conferences? If the 

Commission records conferences, what 

technology should the Commission use? 

Should the Commission make available 

live streaming of the conferences? 

Should users be able to download the 

recordings from the Web site? Should 

users be able to order audio tapes, CD 

and DVD recordings? Should the 

Commission seek to provide Continuing 

Legal Education (CLE) credit for 

attorneys who attend these courses and 

for users who access the audio or video 

recordings of the programs? Should the 

Commission seek to provide Continuing 

Professional Education (CPE) credit for 

Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) 

who attend these courses or who access 

the audio or video recordings? 

In addition to the conferences, should 

the Commission offer other teleconferences, PowerPoint presentations 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 31437 

or online courses or discussion forums? 

If so, what topics should be covered? 

How frequently should live programs be 

offered? After the live programs are 

over, should the Commission continue 

to make the materials from these 

programs available? If so, for what 

period of time should they remain 

available? 

XII. Legal Research 

a. Enforcement Query System 

Materials related to closed 

enforcement cases including Matters 

Under Review (MURs), which is the 

formal name for a matter under 

Commission investigation, and closed 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

cases are available on the FEC’s Web 

site at the tab entitled Enforcement 

Query System (EQS). See http:// 

eqs.nictusa.com/eqs/searcheqs. Through 

EQS, Web site visitors may access the 

Commission’s enforcement documents, 

including complaints, responses, 

conciliation agreements and 

Commissioner statements of reasons, 

using key words or phrases or by basic 

information about these cases (e.g., by 

name of complainant or respondent, or 

by case number). Users can also search 

cases by the type of violation alleged to 

have occurred. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether the query choices 

are sufficiently robust. Do users find it 

easy to search closed enforcement cases 

by the type of violation alleged to have 

occurred? If not, in what ways can EQS 

be improved to facilitate these types of 

searches? Is it easy to search by both the 

type of violation alleged to have 

occurred and the legal citation? Are the 

search results accurate? If not, what are 

the inaccuracies? 

Once a user has located a specific 

MUR or ADR case through a query of 

EQS, the system currently does not 

allow the user to then share direct 

access to all the documents associated 

with that particular MUR or ADR case 

with another user through a specified 

Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or 

hyperlink. Rather, users must be 

instructed to go to the EQS query page 

where the user would then run a new 

query using the MUR or ADR case 

number in order to access the relevant 

documents. Should EQS provide a 

function that would allow users to link 

directly to a specific MUR and ADR 

case? If so, what would be the best way 

for EQS to provide such a function? 

The Commission was constituted in 

1975 and closed its first MUR in January 

1976. At the present time, MURs that 

closed after January 1, 1999 are 

available on EQS. MURs from 1976 to 

1998 are presently available only on 

microfilm at the Commission’s Public 

Disclosure Room in Washington, DC. 

However, the Commission is in the 

process of digitizing the microfilm in 

order to make documents from all 

closed MURs available online. Are there 

any particular ways the Commission can 

make online access to these newly 

added MURs more user-friendly? For 

instance, the Commission intends to use 

optical character recognition to ensure 

these documents are text searchable. 

Are there other ways EQS can be 

improved? 

The EQS system does not currently 

contain any information regarding the 

Commission’s Administrative Fines 

program. The Administrative Fines 

program covers violations of FECA 

section 434(a), 2 U.S.C. 434(a), by 

committees that file their disclosure 

forms late, or do not file at all. See 11 

CFR Part 111, Subpart B. Should the 

Commission include on the EQS system 

documents related to the Administrative 

Fines program? Would including 

Administrative Fines documents in EQS 

assist political committees in fulfilling 

their reporting responsibilities under 

the Act? 

b. Advisory Opinion Search Engine 

The Commission’s Web site currently 

allows searches of advisory opinions 

(AOs) from 1975 to the present, 

including searches of certain documents 

associated with all AOs issued by the 

Commission since 1999, such as 

requests, public comments, and 

concurring and dissenting opinions. 

Links to all of these related documents 

are available for AOs issued since 1999. 

Would it be helpful if the Commission 

were to include documents related to 

AOs issued prior to 1999? The 

Commission has recently completed an 

upgrade of the AO search system, 

resulting in enhanced search 

functionalities and flexibility in 

displaying and sorting search results, as 

well as improved navigability, and new 

features, such as the ability to display 

all search hits in results and an option 

to display PDF documents full-screen. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

the recently upgraded AO Search 

Engine and whether the expanded AO 

query choices are sufficiently robust. 

Are results accurate? Do they clearly 

and accurately reflect when an AO has 

been superseded by a change in the law 

or by a subsequent AO? In what ways 

can the Web site’s AO search 

capabilities be improved? Should the 

documents in the AO search database 

include annotations? 

c. Litigation Documents 

The Commission brings enforcement 

suits in U.S. District Courts when 

matters are not satisfactorily resolved 

through the administrative enforcement 

process and sues to enforce 

administrative subpoenas. The FEC is 

also involved in defending lawsuits, 

which generally fall into the following 

three categories: (1) Lawsuits contesting 

the Commission’s dismissals of 

administrative complaints under 2 

U.S.C. 437g(a)(8); (2) petitions seeking 

review of Commission decisions 

regarding the Presidential public 

funding program; and (3) civil suits 

challenging the constitutionality of 

provisions of the FECA and the validity 

of the Commission’s regulations. 

Materials related to litigation are 

currently available on the Commission’s 

Web site and are divided into four 

sections. The section entitled ‘‘Selected 

Recent and Ongoing Litigation’’ 

provides links to materials related to 

recent litigation involving the FEC. 

‘‘Major Campaign Finance Court 

Decisions’’ identifies key court 

decisions relating to the campaign 

finance law and provides links to 

materials related to those decisions. 

There is also an ‘‘Alphabetical Index of 

FEC Court Cases’’ that lists pending and 

past FEC cases alphabetically with links 

to summaries and, for some cases, to 

court opinions and other documents, 

such as the filed briefs. Finally, the Web 

site includes a ‘‘Subject Index for FEC 

Court Cases’’ that lists pending and past 

FEC cases by subject matter with links 

to summaries and, for some cases, to 

court opinions and other documents. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether the information is sufficiently 

complete and user-friendly. Are there 

pleadings, orders and court opinions 

that impact the Commission, the FECA, 

and the public, that are not found on the 

Web site? For example, the Web site 

currently contains only pleadings that 

were filed by the FEC or by parties 

aligned with the FEC. Should the Web 

site also provide access to pleadings 

filed by opposing parties? Are the 

documents timely posted and 

adequately indexed? Are the documents 

easy to locate and search? Should the 

Web site contain summaries of cases 

and opinions? Should the Web site 

contain links to the court opinions for 

every pending and past case? 

d. Rules, Statutes and Policy Statements 

The FEC promulgates rules (also 

known as regulations) that implement 

the FECA and other statutes. The 

Commission’s Web site currently 

provides access to the Commission’s 

31438 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 

regulations, as well as a variety of legal 

resources, including the text of the 

FECA and other relevant statutes. See 

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/cfr.shtml; 

http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.shtml. 

Currently, a compilation of all the 

Commission’s rules is available in a 

single PDF file on the Web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ 

cfr_2009.pdf. The Web site also 

provides a link to the Government 

Printing Office’s (GPO) Web site where 

a user can access each rule individually, 

both in PDF and text formats. See http:// 

www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/ 

waisidx_09/11cfrv1_09.html. Are the 

Commission’s rules easy to find? Can 

the Commission’s rules be printed 

easily? What improvements can the 

Commission make in making its 

regulations available and accessible to 

the public? 

Whenever the Commission 

promulgates a new regulation it also 

adopts an Explanation and Justification 

(E&J) providing detailed information 

about the new rule. All of the 

Commission’s E&Js are available on the 

Web site at http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ 

cfr.shtml and are organized both by 

citation (by Part, rule number, and title) 

and chronologically (by date of 

adoption). Are the E&Js organized in a 

useful way? If not, how should they be 

organized? Should they be organized by 

related subject matter? Are the E&Js easy 

to locate? Once located, are they easily 

searched? 

Similarly, is the text of the FECA and 

other relevant statutes easy to find on, 

and print from, the Commission’s Web 

site? The FECA is often amended 

though the passage of other statutes 

such as, most recently, the Honest 

Leadership and Open Government Act 

of 2007 (HLOGA), Public Law 110–81, 

121 Stat. 735 (2007). Are these statutory 

amendments to the FECA easy to find? 

If not, how can the Commission make 

them more accessible? Should the 

Commission provide annotated versions 

of its rules and of the FECA that discuss 

court interpretation or promulgation 

history, or cross-reference Advisory 

Opinions, enforcement matters and 

litigation? 

The Commission also makes its policy 

statements available on the Web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/policy.shtml. 

The policy statements address such 

issues as (1) Best Efforts to Collect 

Contributor Information, (2) Self 

Reporting of Campaign Finance 

Violations (Sua Sponte Submissions), 

and (3) Safe Harbor for Misreporting 

Due to Embezzlement. Are the policy 

statements organized in a useful way? If 

not, in what other way should they be 

organized? 

e. Rulemakings 

Documents relating to recent (starting 

from 2007) and ongoing FEC 

rulemakings are listed by topic in 

reverse chronological order on the 

Commission’s Web site, with new 

rulemakings added to the top of the list. 

See http://www.fec.gov/law/ 

law_rulemakings.shtml. Documents 

related to older rulemakings (1999– 

2006) are also available on a 

Rulemakings Archive page at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/ 

RulemakingArchive.shtml. Are the 

Commission’s rulemakings easy to find? 

Is the information related to each 

rulemaking organized in a useful way? 

If not, how should they be organized? 

Should the Rulemakings Archive page 

include proceedings from prior to 1999? 

Is there additional information related 

to Commission rulemakings that would 

be useful to include on the Web site? 

XIII. Electronic Filing of Disclosure 

Reports 

Since 2001, almost all political 

committees have been required to file 

reports and statements electronically 

with the Commission (the requirement 

to file electronically does not currently 

apply to Senate candidate committees). 

Political committees generally must file 

all reports and statements electronically 

if their total contributions or total 

expenditures exceed, or are expected to 

exceed, $50,000 in a calendar year. See 

11 CFR 104.18. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission’s 

electronic filing system is easy to use, 

particularly for first-time users. The 

Commission seeks comment on ways in 

which the Commission’s electronic 

filing system can be improved, such as 

whether the Commission’s electronic 

filing software, FECFile (available at 

http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/ 

FECFileIntroPage.shtml), is sufficiently 

user-friendly and whether the 

Commission has provided sufficiently 

clear instructions to help filers use the 

software. 

FECFile is the Commission’s 

electronic report filing software 

application designed to run on 

Windows platforms that enables filers to 

record and track information required 

for reporting to the Commission and to 

securely submit these data to the 

Commission electronically. Have filers 

been able to use the FECFile software on 

computers with the latest Windows 

operating systems such as 64-bit Vista? 

Should FECFile be modified to also 

operate on a MAC platform? The 

Commission is aware that several 

commercial vendors also offer other 

software packages that political 

committees can use to record and track 

financial information that can then be 

reported to the Commission. 

See http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/ 

software.shtml. The Commission seeks 

comment on ways in which FECFile can 

be improved. What functions are not 

available through the use of FECFile 

that are available through commercial 

software packages (e.g., drop-down 

windows that would offer a choice of 

acceptable descriptions of purpose for 

particular reported disbursements)? 

Should FECFile be modified to include 

those functions? Is FECFile as flexible, 

intuitive and helpful as commercially 

available software packages? If not, in 

what ways is it less flexible, intuitive or 

helpful? 

In order to file electronic disclosure 

reports using FECFile, a user must 

obtain a password (whether for the first 

time or as a replacement of an old 

password) by faxing or mailing a request 

letter to the Commission. If the request 

letter is sent on behalf of a political 

committee, the letter must be signed by 

the committee’s treasurer. A member of 

the Commission staff then calls the 

requester and provides a password over 

the phone. Should the Commission 

allow users to request a first-time 

password electronically through the 

Web site? Should users also be able to 

electronically change their passwords, 

or create new ones when an old 

password is forgotten? If yes, what 

security measures should the 

Commission put in place to ensure that 

passwords are only provided to 

authorized persons? 

The Commission has not made public 

the source code for the FECFile software 

package. If the Commission made the 

source code for FECFile public, this 

would allow others to develop 

modifications to the software on their 

own. Would this be useful? If so, how? 

Generally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether providing FECFile 

software to filers is the best approach to 

facilitate the electronic filing process. 

Are there alternative approaches that 

would better serve this function, such as 

using instead a Web-based report filing 

system that would not require reporting 

committees to use separate specialized 

software? 

With respect to the existing FECFile 

software package, can novice users 

easily input the required information? If 

not, what types of common problems do 

users encounter? User manuals, 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), 

and other documents to assist FECFile 

users are available on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.fec.gov/support/ 

index.shtml. Are these materials 

sufficiently helpful to FECFile users? In 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 31439 

what ways can the materials be 

improved? Should focused guidance be 

available for each data entry space and 

should the guidance be accessible by 

clicking in or near that data entry space? 

If there are problems that FECFile users 

are unable to resolve, does the 

Commission provide adequate technical 

support? If not, what are the current 

deficiencies and how can these be 

addressed? 

Additionally, because it is common 

for electronically filed disclosure 

reports to contain missing, incomplete 

or even inconsistent data, the 

Commission’s staff is often required to 

reconcile the data before it can be useful 

to the public. The Commission invites 

suggestions on ways in which the 

Commission might be able to mitigate 

the work currently required by 

Commission staff to reconcile the data. 

For example, should the Commission’s 

electronic filing system automatically 

prevent filers from submitting reports 

with missing, incomplete or 

inconsistent data and at the same time 

inform the filer of the deficiency and 

suggest ways in which the report can be 

corrected thereby allowing the filer to 

know in advance that there is a problem 

and provide information about possible 

solutions? 

The Commission currently makes 

available a set of programming tools, 

including electronic filing specifications 

requirements and validation software, 

for vendors to use in developing their 

own commercial software packages. Are 

these tools useful? How can they be 

improved? Should the Commission 

employ a more rigorous certification 

standard for commercial software? Are 

new or more rigorous software 

standards for commercial software 

packages advisable to prevent filing of 

reports with missing, incomplete or 

inconsistent data, or do current 

standards need to be better enforced? 

How can the Commission ensure that 

changes do not unfairly burden 

candidates, especially less well-funded 

challengers? 

XIV. Electronic Filing of Other 

Documents 

The Commission interacts with the 

public, the media, political committees, 

and other entities through a variety of 

means. The above-described electronic 

filing system, which resulted in 

improvements to the Commission’s 

filing procedures, is one such means. 

The Commission seeks comments on 

whether the use of electronic ‘‘portals’’ 

for filing purposes could improve the 

Commission’s procedures in other areas. 

For instance, in rulemaking 

proceedings, although the Commission 

currently allows comments on proposed 

rules to be submitted by e-mail, should 

the Commission allow electronic filing 

of petitions for rulemaking and for 

comments in rulemaking proceedings 

through its Web site? If so, should the 

Commission move to an entirely online 

system for filing of petitions for 

rulemaking and for comments in 

rulemaking proceedings, such that 

paper versions of comments and 

rulemaking petitions submitted by the 

public would no longer be accepted? 

Similarly, should the Commission 

implement a system for electronic filing 

of advisory opinion requests? Should 

the Commission also implement a webbased electronic filing system for 

commenting on advisory opinion 

requests and draft advisory opinions, 

whereby comments could be filed 

directly through the Commission’s Web 

site either by entering text on the Web 

site or by uploading a file? If so, should 

the Commission mandate the electronic 

submission of all documents submitted 

by members of the public in connection 

with advisory opinions, such as 

advisory opinion requests, comments on 

advisory opinion requests, and 

comments on draft advisory opinions? 

The Commission’s Web site currently 

provides information to the public 

regarding the procedures for filing a 

complaint with the Commission. At the 

present time, however, all complaints 

must be submitted on paper by mail or 

in person. Respondents are provided 

with notices of complaints pursuant to 

the provisions of the Act, but currently 

all responses also are submitted by hard 

copy. The Commission seeks comments 

on whether it should accommodate 

electronic filing of complaints and 

responses. Should the Commission 

allow electronic filing of complaints and 

responses to substitute for paper copies? 

Rather than allowing for permissive 

electronic filing, should the 

Commission mandate electronic filing 

for complaints and responses? Given 

that FECA requires that all complaints 

be signed and sworn by the person filing 

the complaint, would an electronic 

signature, or even the use of a user 

account and password, satisfy this 

statutory requirement? When the 

Commission communicates with 

respondents, such as sending 

notifications of reason-to-believe or 

subpoenas for documents, should the 

respondent be encouraged to submit 

answers and documents by e-mail or, 

alternatively, through a web-based 

submission form? Also, should the 

Commission accept conciliation 

agreements that contain an electronic 

signature by electronic means? 

XV. Commission Meetings 

Audio recordings of public 

Commission meetings are generally 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

within 48 hours after a meeting. See 

http://www.fec.gov/audio/audio.shtml. 

The Commission currently does not 

create video recordings of its public 

meetings. The audio recordings are 

available in an MP3 file format, which 

can be played through a user’s preferred 

software such as Windows Media 

Player, Real Player, or QuickTime. The 

Commission also makes these audio 

recordings available as podcasts, which 

are automatically sent to a user once a 

user signs up for the podcasts on the 

Commission’s Web site. The URL for the 

Commission’s podcasts is http:// 

www.fec.gov/audio/fec_audio.xml. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether these audio recordings are 

useful. Should they be made available 

in different formats? If so, which 

formats? Should the Commission make 

live audio streaming of its meetings 

available as well? 

Should the Commission make 

available video recordings of its 

meetings? If so, should a live stream of 

the video be made available or is a 

recording sufficient? What technology 

should the Commission use to provide 

access to video streaming of its 

meetings? 

In addition to audio and video 

recordings, should the Commission 

make available written transcripts of its 

open meetings? If yes, would it be 

appropriate for the Commission to 

charge for access to such transcripts? 

XVI. Technical Issues 

a. Software and Operating Systems 

The Commission seeks comment on a 

number of technical issues relating to its 

Web site, including URL naming 

conventions, the use of metadata, Web 

site accessibility, formatting, and 

hardware. 

The Commission uses a number of 

URL naming conventions in designating 

names for the pages on its Web site. For 

example, the Commission uses lower 

case letters and has set a number of 

directories related to major categories of 

information available on the Web site. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it is using appropriate URL 

naming conventions for the pages on its 

Web site. 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on other aspects of data receipt and 

presentation. For example, what 

metadata standards should the FEC use 

and why? The Commission also seeks 

comment on how easily its Web site can 

be accessed by the public. Is the 

31440 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 

Commission’s Web site accessible using 

different web browsers, such as Internet 

Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari or 

Google Chrome? Also, is the 

Commission’s Web site accessible using 

different operating systems and at 

different connection speeds? Is the 

Commission’s Web site accessible using 

recently released versions of operating 

systems such as 64-bit Vista? What can 

the Commission do to ensure that its 

Web site remains accessible as new 

technology becomes available? 

b. Hardware 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on the type of computer hardware the 

Commission uses to support its Web 

site. The Commission currently uses 

load-balanced Sun Fire servers running 

Solaris 10 with Webserver Apache. Are 

these servers the best hardware for a 

Web site such as the FEC’s? If not, why 

not and what kind would serve the 

public better? What innovations or 

advancements are anticipated in the 

near future? In what ways can the FEC 

plan for such advancements? 

c. File Formatting 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on its Web site formatting and 

printability. The Commission currently 

uses Adobe Dreamweaver for Web site 

development. Is Dreamweaver the best 

software available for development of a 

Web site such as the FEC’s? If not, why 

not and what software would serve the 

public better now and in the future? 

Are the Commission’s Web site pages 

formatted properly to allow for easy 

printing? Should the Commission 

employ a ‘‘printer friendly’’ function on 

its Web site? If so, on which pages? 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on whether documents are made 

available in formats that are easy to 

access, such as HTML (Hyper Text 

Markup Language), XML (Extensible 

Markup Language), Microsoft Word or 

PDF. For example, are there adequate 

links to the downloadable free PDF 

viewer provided? Is page download time 

for PDF documents quick enough, 

especially for scanned documents? 

Finally, should large documents be 

made available for viewing and printing 

by smaller sections or chapters? 

XVII. Maintenance of Content 

The Commission updates its Web site 

on a daily basis by adding new 

information, updating old information 

and removing obsolete information. 

Examples of these changes include 

guidance about new statutes and 

regulations. The Commission seeks 

comment about whether information is 

added, updated and deleted in a timely 

manner. If not, what would be a 

reasonable time period within which 

information should be added, updated 

or deleted? Is the information on the 

FEC’s Web site current? Are users easily 

able to see whether a page is current? 

For example, should each page on the 

Commission’s Web site provide 

information about the ‘‘date posted’’ or 

‘‘last reviewed’’ to allow viewers to 

assess whether the information is 

current? Should the Commission 

maintain archived versions of the Web 

site so that users can access information 

that was available in the past? If so, how 

should the Commission make archived 

versions of the Web site accessible? 

When new information is added to a 

Web site it is important to ensure that 

the new information is not duplicative, 

or worse yet, contradictory to 

information that is already available. 

Additionally, it is vital that links are 

updated to ensure that viewers can 

access the information they seek. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

its Web site contains contradictory or 

erroneous content. Are links on the 

Commission’s Web site maintained 

properly? 

The Commission also seeks comment 

on whether, and if so, how often, it 

should conduct a content review of the 

entire Web site to ensure that online 

content is accurate, relevant, missionrelated and written in plain language. 

XVIII. Privacy Policy 

Federal agencies are under an 

obligation to protect the privacy of the 

American people when they interact 

with their government. Accordingly, 

agencies are required to have clear 

privacy policies and to post those 

policies on their Web sites. The FEC’s 

privacy policy is available at http:// 

www.fec.gov/privacy.shtml. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

its privacy policy is appropriate and 

adequate. 

XIX. Implementation of Changes 

After the Commission reviews the 

written comments filed in response to 

this notice, as well as the testimony 

from witnesses at the hearing, the 

Commission will consider 

implementing improvements to the 

ways in which the Commission uses the 

Internet to disclose information to the 

public, including changes to the 

Commission’s Web site. Once the 

Commission implements such changes, 

what is the most effective way for the 

Commission to inform the public about 

those changes? For example, should the 

Commission provide a link on the 

homepage to a guide regarding changes? 

Should the Commission issue a press 

release? Are there other ways the 

Commission should inform the public 

once the Web site is updated? 

XX. Customer Satisfaction & Future 

Improvements 

The Commission currently receives 

comments and suggestions regarding its 

Web site through e-mails sent to the 

Commission’s Web Manager 

(Webmanager@fec.gov). Currently, the 

Commission has no other method of 

measuring the usability of its Web site 

or customer satisfaction. Thus, the 

Commission seeks suggestions on ways 

in which the Commission could 

measure usability and customer 

satisfaction. For example, should the 

Commission conduct focus groups? 

Should the Commission conduct online 

surveys? Should the Web site host blogs 

in which users could provide feedback? 

Should these blogs be made available to 

the public? Are there any privacy 

concerns that the Commission should be 

aware of that are associated with 

conducting online surveys? 

Going forward, the Commission seeks 

comment on how it may most 

effectively review and make further Web 

site improvements. Also, the 

Commission seeks comment on the most 

effective way to solicit and receive 

further feedback and suggestions. Is the 

Commission’s use of the Webmaster email address sufficient? Should the 

Commission proactively solicit 

additional feedback from the public? 

Finally, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether it should post user 

comments and suggestions on the 

Commission’s Web site. If so, should the 

Commission also post actions taken by 

the Commission in response to such 

comments and suggestions? 

XXI. Recommended Resources 

Are there private resources such as 

research centers, academic institutions, 

or technical experts and consultants, 

available that the Commission might not 

be aware of that could assist the 

Commission in implementing 

improvements to the ways in which the 

Commission discloses information to 

the public and improvements to its Web 

site in the most expeditious and 

efficient manner possible? If so, what 

are those resources and how can the 

Commission access them? Are those 

resources available from commercial 

entities or non-profit organizations? Are 

there other government agencies that 

maintain Web sites that the Commission 

should try to emulate? If so, which 

agencies and why? 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Notices 31441 

Dated: March 25, 2009. 

Steven T. Walther, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received in the Office of the Federal Register 

on Thursday, June 25, 2009. 

[FR Doc. E9–15497 Filed 6–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Announcement of Board 

Approval Under Delegated Authority 

and Submission to OMB 

SUMMARY: 

Background 

Notice is hereby given of the final 

approval of a proposed information 

collection by the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System (Board) 

under OMB delegated authority, as per 

5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on 

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the 

Public). Board-approved collections of 

information are incorporated into the 

official OMB inventory of currently 

approved collections of information. 

Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Submission, supporting statements and 

approved collection of information 

instrument(s) are placed into OMB’s 

public docket files. The Federal Reserve 

may not conduct or sponsor, and the 

respondent is not required to respond 

to, an information collection that has 

been extended, revised, or implemented 

on or after October 1, 1995, unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Acting Federal Reserve Board Clearance 

Officer—Cynthia Ayouch—Division of 

Research and Statistics, Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, Washington, DC 20551 (202– 

452–3829). 

OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta 

Ahmed—Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503. 

Final approval under OMB delegated 

authority of the extension for three 

years, without revision, of the following 

report: 

Report title: Suspicious Activity 

Report by Depository Institutions (SAR). 

Agency form number: FR 2230. 

OMB Control number: 7100–0212. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Reporters: State member banks, bank 

holding companies and their nonbank 

subsidiaries, Edge and agreement 

corporations, and the U.S. branches and 

agencies, representative offices, and 

nonbank subsidiaries of foreign banks 

supervised by the Federal Reserve. 

Annual reporting hours: 86,404 hours. 

Estimated average hours per response: 

1 hour. 

Number of respondents: 7,000. 

General description of report: This 

information collection is mandatory, 

pursuant to authority contained in the 

following statutes: 12 U.S.C. 248(a)(1), 

625, 1818, 1844(c), 3105(c)(2), and 

3106(a). The obligation to file a SAR is 

set forth in the Board’s rules, and is 

mandatory: 12 CFR 208.62(c) (state 

member banks); 12 CFR 225.4(f) (entities 

subject to the Bank Holding Company 

Act and their nonbank subsidiaries); 12 

CFR 211.5(k) (Edge and agreement 

corporations); and 12 CFR 211.24(f) 

(U.S. branches, agencies, and 

representative offices of foreign banks). 

Section 5318(g)(2)(A)(ii) of Title 31 

generally prohibits an officer or 

employee of the Federal Government 

from disclosing the existence of a SAR 

to anyone involved in the transaction, 

and section 5319 of Title 31 provides 

that SARs are exempt from disclosure 

under FOIA. The information collected 

on a SAR is covered by, among other 

things, exemptions 3 and 7 of the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552(b)(3)&(7)) and exemption 2 of the 

Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2)) 

Abstract: Since 1996, the federal 

banking agencies (the Federal Reserve 

Board, the Office of the Comptroller of 

the Currency, the Office of Thrift 

Supervision, the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation, and the National 

Credit Union Administration) and the 

Department of the Treasury’s Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) 

(collectively, the agencies) have 

required certain types of financial 

institutions to report known or 

suspected violations of law and 

suspicious transactions. To fulfill these 

requirements, supervised banking 

organizations file SARs. Law 

enforcement agencies use the 

information submitted on the reporting 

form to initiate investigations and the 

Federal Reserve uses the information in 

the examination and oversight of 

supervised institutions. 

Current Actions: On April 1, 2009, the 

agencies published a notice in the 

Federal Register (74 FR 14863) 

requesting public comment for 60 days 

on the extension, without revision, of 

the interagency Suspicious Activities 

Report by Depository Institutions. The 

comment period for this notice expired 

on June 1, 2009. The Federal Reserve 

did not receive any comments on this 

proposal. However, three comment 

letters were received by FinCEN. Two of 

the comment letters were from banking 

institutions and one was from a credit 

union association. The other agencies 

will publish a separate Federal Register 

notice addressing the comments and 

each agency will separately submit their 

SAR information collection to OMB. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, June 25, 2009. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E9–15479 Filed 6–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and 

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies 

The companies listed in this notice 

have applied to the Board for approval, 

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company 

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) 

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 

225), and all other applicable statutes 

and regulations to become a bank 

holding company and/or to acquire the 

assets or the ownership of, control of, or 

the power to vote shares of a bank or 

bank holding company and all of the 

banks and nonbanking companies 

owned by the bank holding company, 

including the companies listed below. 

The applications listed below, as well 

as other related filings required by the 

Board, are available for immediate 

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 

indicated. The application also will be 

available for inspection at the offices of 

the Board of Governors. Interested 

persons may express their views in 

writing on the standards enumerated in 

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 

proposal also involves the acquisition of 

a nonbanking company, the review also 

includes whether the acquisition of the 

nonbanking company complies with the 

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Additional information on all bank 

holding companies may be obtained 

from the National Information Center 

website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding each of these applications 

must be received at the Reserve Bank 

indicated or the offices of the Board of 

Governors not later than July 27, 2009. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas 

City (Todd Offerbacker, Assistant Vice 

President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64198–0001: