This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

37179 

Vol. 74, No. 143 

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 110 

[Notice 2009–16] 

Candidate Debates 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Disposition of 

Petitions for Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission announces 

its disposition of two Petitions for 

Rulemaking regarding the Commission’s 

candidate debate regulations. The first 

petition, filed on May 25, 1999 by Mary 

Clare Wohlford, William T. Wohlford, 

and Martin T. Mortimer (‘‘Wohlford 

Petition’’), urged the Commission to 

amend its rules so that the objective 

criteria for inclusion in Presidential and 

Vice Presidential debates would be 

established by the Commission itself, 

and not left to the discretion of debate 

staging organizations. The second 

petition, filed on April 10, 2002 by 

several major news organizations, urged 

the Commission to amend its rules to 

state explicitly that the sponsorship by 

a news organization (or a related trade 

association) of a debate among 

candidates does not constitute an illegal 

corporate campaign contribution or 

expenditure in violation of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’) and that the 

Commission would have no jurisdiction 

over such sponsorship. The Commission 

has decided not to initiate a rulemaking 

in response to either of these petitions. 

The petitions are available for 

inspection in the Commission’s Public 

Records Office, and on its Web site, 

http://www.fec.gov. 

DATES: July 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 

Counsel, or Ms. Esther D. Heiden, Staff 

Attorney, 999 E Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 

or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

25, 1999, the Commission received a 

Petition for Rulemaking from Mary 

Clare Wohlford, William T. Wohlford, 

and Martin T. Mortimer. On April 10, 

2002, the Commission received a 

Petition for Rulemaking from CBS 

Broadcasting Inc.; American 

Broadcasting Companies Inc.; Belo 

Corp.; Cox Enterprises, Inc.; Gannett 

Co., Inc.; the National Association of 

Broadcasters; National Broadcasting Co., 

Inc.; News America Incorporated; The 

New York Times Company; PostNewsweek Stations, Inc.; the Radio and 

Television News Directors Association; 

the Society of Professional Journalists; 

and Tribune Company (‘‘News Media 

Petition’’). Both petitions concern the 

Commission’s candidate debate 

regulations at 11 CFR 110.13. Section 

110.13(c) states, inter alia, that ‘‘[f]or all 

debates, staging organization(s) must 

use pre-established objective criteria to 

determine which candidates may 

participate in a debate.’’ 

The Wohlford Petition asserts that the 

objective criteria for inclusion in 

Presidential and Vice Presidential 

debates should be established by the 

Commission itself, and not left to the 

discretion of debate staging 

organizations. The petition urges the 

Commission to revise section 110.13(c) 

to set forth mandatory criteria for 

participation in Presidential and Vice 

Presidential debates. Specifically, the 

Wohlford Petition recommends that the 

debates be open to any candidate that: 

(1) Has the mathematical potential to 

win the election in that he or she is on 

the ballot in enough states to earn 270 

Electoral College votes; and (2) has 

proven his or her viability by having 

spent at least $500,000 on the campaign 

by the end of the month preceding the 

date of the first scheduled debate held 

on or after September 1 of the election 

year. In addition, the Wohlford Petition 

urges that candidates have equal access 

to debates held before September 1 

without regard to the above 

requirements. 

The News Media Petition asserts that 

11 CFR 110.13(c) should be amended or 

repealed. Specifically, it asserts that any 

regulation of the sponsorship by a news 

organization (or a related trade 

association) is: (1) Contrary to the clear 

intent of Congress in adopting the Act; 

(2) irreconcilable with the Commission’s 

own decisions that media entities do not 

violate the Act by providing free time to 

candidates; and (3) in conflict with 

long-established policies of the Federal 

Communications Commission 

concerning the presentation of 

campaign debates by broadcasters. 

Finally, the News Media Petition asserts 

that 11 CFR 110.13(c) is 

unconstitutional because it does not 

advance the purpose of preventing 

corruption or the appearance of 

corruption in the political process, 

which the Supreme Court has held are 

‘the only legitimate and compelling 

government interests thus far identified 

for restricting [First Amendment rights 

in the regulation] of campaign 

finances.’ ’’ (quoting FEC v. National 

Conservative Political Action 

Committee, 470 U.S. 480, 96–97 (1985). 

The News Media Petition urges the 

Commission to draft new regulations 

that explicitly declare that sponsorship 

of a candidate debate by a news 

organization or a related trade 

association is legal under the Act and to 

refrain from any further regulatory 

jurisdiction over such sponsorship. 

The Commission published a Notice 

of Availability (‘‘first NOA’’) on June 10, 

1999, to seek comment on the Wohlford 

Petition, 64 FR 31159 (June 10, 1999), 

and subsequently extended the 

comment period on July 21, 1999, 64 FR 

39095 (July 21, 1999). The Commission 

received approximately 1,000 comments 

in response to the first NOA. Most of the 

comments expressed support for the 

Wohlford Petition. Several comments, 

however, expressed opposition to the 

establishment of mandatory objective 

criteria by the Commission for 

participation in Presidential and Vice 

Presidential debates. 

The Commission published a second 

Notice of Availability (‘‘second NOA’’) 

on May 9, 2002 to seek comment on the 

News Media Petition. 67 FR 31164 (May 

9, 2002). The Commission received one 

substantive comment in response to the 

second NOA, which generally 

supported the News Media Petition. The 

Commission also received a response 

from the IRS indicating it did not have 

substantive comments. Copies of 

comments on both NOAs are available 

on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.fec.gov and in the 

Commission’s Public Records Office. 

A significant period of time has 

passed since the petitions were filed. 

During that time many Presidential and 

Vice Presidential debates have taken 

place. Additionally, with the advent of 

new ways to communicate, including 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
37180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the Internet and the new methods of 

communication it affords, there are now 

many new ways that issues are debated 

among candidates. The factors that 

precipitated the filing of the petitions 

may now be viewed much differently by 

some or all of the petitioners. Further, 

the many comments that were received 

from the public may no longer, in the 

view of those commenters, accurately 

represent positions they would now 

advocate to the Commission on the 

issues. Moreover, no formal requests 

have been made by the petitioners in 

recent times to activate the petitions or 

to invoke the jurisdiction of the 

Commission to consider the petitions. 

In view of the passage of time, the 

events which have transpired, as well as 

other factors discussed above, the 

Commission believes that any 

consideration of the issues raised in the 

Wohlford Petition and the News Media 

Petition should be based on newly filed 

petitions. Accordingly, the Commission 

declines to open a new rulemaking and 

will not issue a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in response to either of the 

petitions. The Commission emphasizes 

that its decision not to initiate a 

rulemaking at this time does not 

foreclose the Commission from 

considering future petitions seeking the 

same or similar relief. 

On behalf of the Commission. 

Dated: July 22, 2009. 

Steven T. Walther, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–17868 Filed 7–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

25 CFR Part 515 

RIN 3141–AA21 

Privacy Act Procedures 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission, Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document 

is to propose to amend the procedures 

followed by the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (Commission) when 

processing a request under the Privacy 

Act of 1974. The proposed amendments 

make the following changes to the 

current regulations. Section 515.3 

changes the address of the Commission, 

provides a list of items to include in 

requests to the Commission, and 

provides the necessary requirements for 

third party requests. Section 515.4 

includes the Commission policy for 

dealing with other agencies and 

designates an individual responsible for 

making initial Privacy Act 

determinations. Section 515.5 explains 

what constitutes an adverse 

determination. Section 515.6 changes 

the time for appeals of adverse 

determinations from 180 days to 30 

days. Section 515.8 details when the 

Commission is required to provide an 

accounting of the records it discloses. 

Finally, Section 515.12 updates the list 

of records that are exempt from 

disclosure under the Privacy Act. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received on or 

before September 11, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

the National Indian Gaming 

Commission, FOIA/PA Officer, 1441 L 

Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, 

DC 20005, delivered to that address 

between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, or faxed to 

(202) 632–7066 (this is not a toll free 

number). Comments may be inspected 

between 9 a.m. and noon and between 

2 p.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, at the above address. Comments 

may also be submitted electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mailed 

to pacomments@nigc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeannie McCoy at (202) 632–7003 or by 

fax (202) 632–7066 (these numbers are 

not toll free). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 

enacted on October 17, 1988, 

established the National Indian Gaming 

Commission. Congress enacted the 

Privacy Act, Public Law 93–579, 5 

U.S.C. 552a, in 1974. The Commission 

originally adopted Privacy Act 

procedures on January 22, 1993. Now, 

the Commission has decided that the 

procedures need to be updated. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: The 

Commission certifies that the proposed 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). The factual basis for this 

certification is as follows: This rule is 

procedural in nature and will not 

impose substantive requirements that 

would be considered impacts within the 

scope of the Act. For this reason, the 

Commission has concluded that the 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

impact on those small entities subject to 

the rule. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: The 

Commission is an independent 

regulatory agency, and, as such, is not 

subject to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. 

Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act: The 

proposed rule is not a major rule under 

5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

The proposed rule will not result in an 

annual effect on the economy of more 

than $100 million per year; a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of U.S. based enterprises. 

Paperwork Reduction Act: The 

proposed rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements for 

which the Office of Management and 

Budget approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) 

would be required. 

National Environmental Policy Act: 

The Commission has determined that 

the proposed rule does not constitute a 

major Federal Action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment and that no detailed 

statement is required pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969. 

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 515 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Privacy, Reporting and 

recordkeeping. 

Accordingly for the reasons set forth 

above, the Commission is proposing to 

revise Part 515 of Title 25 to read as 

follows: 

PART 515—PRIVACY ACT 

PROCEDURES 

Sec. 

515.1 Purpose and scope. 

515.2 Definitions. 

515.3 Request for access to records. 

515.4 Responsibility for responding to 

requests. 

515.5 Responses to requests for access to 

records. 

515.6 Appealing denials of access. 

515.7 Request for amendment or correction 

of records. 

515.8 Requests for an accounting of record 

disclosure. 

515.9 Fees. 

515.10 Penalties. 

515.11 General exemptions [Reserved] 

515.12 Specific exemptions. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

§ 515.1 Purpose and scope. 

This part contains the regulations the 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

(Commission) follows in implementing 

the Privacy Act of 1974. These 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1