Federal Regulatory Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal regulatory agencies ranging from the Securities Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Featured Stories
SEC: Fee Rate Advisory #1 for Fiscal Year 2020
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release:
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that in fiscal year 2020 the fees that public companies and other issuers pay to register their securities with the Commission will be set at $129.80 per million dollars.
Background
The securities laws require the Commission to make annual adjustments to the rates for fees paid under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Commission must set rates for the fees paid under
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release:
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that in fiscal year 2020 the fees that public companies and other issuers pay to register their securities with the Commission will be set at $129.80 per million dollars.
Background
The securities laws require the Commission to make annual adjustments to the rates for fees paid under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Commission must set rates for the fees paid underSection 6(b) to levels that the Commission projects will generate collections equal to annual statutory target amounts. The Commission's projections are calculated using a methodology developed in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget. The statutory target amount for fiscal year 2020 is $705 million. The annual adjustment to the fee rate under Section 6(b) also sets the annual adjustment to the fee rates under Sections 13(e) and 14(g).
By law, the annual rate changes for fees paid under Section 6(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 13(e) and 14(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 must take effect on the first day of each fiscal year. Therefore, effective Oct. 1, 2019, the Section 6(b) fee rate applicable to the registration of securities, the Section 13(e) fee rate applicable to the repurchase of securities, and the Section 14(g) fee rates applicable to proxy solicitations and statements in corporate control transactions will increase to $129.80 per million dollars from $121.20 per million dollars. The Section 6(b) rate is also the rate used to calculate the fees payable with the Annual Notice of Securities Sold Pursuant to Rule 24f-2 under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
The Commission will issue further notices as appropriate to keep the public informed of developments relating to fees under Section 6(b), Section 13(e) and Section 14(g). These notices will be posted at http://www.sec.gov.
SEC Issues Order Involving John M.E. Saad
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order (Admin. Proc. File No. 3-13678r) involving John M.E. Saad:
In the Matter of the Application of JOHN M.E. SAAD
For Review of Disciplinary Action Taken by FINRA
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION -- REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
Court of appeals remanded matter to the Commission after Commission sustained FINRA disciplinary action for Commission to determine in the first instance whether Supreme Court decision had any bearing on matter. Held, Supreme Court decision had no bearing
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order (Admin. Proc. File No. 3-13678r) involving John M.E. Saad:
In the Matter of the Application of JOHN M.E. SAAD
For Review of Disciplinary Action Taken by FINRA
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION -- REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
Court of appeals remanded matter to the Commission after Commission sustained FINRA disciplinary action for Commission to determine in the first instance whether Supreme Court decision had any bearing on matter. Held, Supreme Court decision had no bearingon determination that FINRA disciplinary action should be sustained.
APPEARANCES:
Sarah L. Levine, Joan E. McKown, and Alex Potapov, of Jones Day, and Sara E. Kropf of the Law Office of Sara Kropf PLLC, for John M.E. Saad.
Alan Lawhead, Gary Dernelle, and Michael Garawski, for FINRA.
Case remanded: December 5, 2017
Last brief received: April 10, 2018
Introduction
In 2015, the Commission sustained a FINRA disciplinary action barring John M.E. Saad from associating with any FINRA member firm following his misappropriation of employer funds./1 After Saad appealed, the D.C. Circuit granted in part and denied in part Saad's petition for review./2 The court found that we had "provided a careful and comprehensive analysis of Saad's arguments seeking a reduction in his sanction."/3 The court also found that our decision "reasonably focused on the record of Saad's prolonged pattern of falsehoods and deception, as well as the direct threat that his misconduct posed to customers' and other participants' faith in the integrity of the securities industry."/4 Nonetheless, the court remanded for us to consider the relevance, if any, of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kokesh v. SEC to Saad's contention that the bar FINRA imposed on him is impermissibly punitive./5
Analysis
Kokesh held that disgorgement is a "penalty" for purposes of the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2462, which applies to any "action, suit, or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture."/6 In so holding, the Supreme Court said that a "'civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment.'"/7 The D.C. Circuit has stated that the Commission may affirm only FINRA sanctions that are "remedial" and not "punitive,"/8 so, Saad argues, because FINRA bars serve deterrent purposes,/9 a FINRA bar is "categorically punitive" under Kokesh and thus impermissible./10
We see no basis for extending Kokesh in the manner that Saad suggests. Courts have recognized that a sanction does not become punitive simply because the person on whom it is imposed feels punished. Courts have also recognized that all sanctions will have some deterrent effect. Accepting Saad's argument would render essentially all sanctions punitive. This cannot be.
Kokesh does not render FINRA bars impermissible. The "sole question presented" in Kokesh was whether a particular pecuniary sanction--disgorgement--constituted a fine, penalty, or forfeiture "within the meaning" of Section 2462./11 The Court held that a "pecuniary sanction operates as a penalty only if it is sought 'for the purpose of punishment, and to deter others from offending in like manner'--as opposed to compensating a victim for his loss."/12 But it makes no sense to extend this compensation-based test to nonpecuniary sanctions--which by their nature do not compensate victims--lest we render all noncompensatory sanctions penalties.
No Supreme Court precedent supports this result. Rather, the Supreme Court has recognized that debarments from practicing a profession after misconduct occurs are to be regarded not as "imposi[ng] . . . an additional penalty" but instead as securing the public "against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity as well as deception and fraud."/13 As a result, such debarments are "remedial sanctions."/14
Similarly, the D.C. Circuit, specifically in the context of FINRA bars, has held that debarments to protect the public are remedial. A FINRA bar may be imposed, not as punishment, but "'as a means of protecting investors,'" and "'general deterrence . . . may be considered as part of the overall remedial inquiry.'"/15 Other circuit courts and the Commission also recognize this framework for sustaining FINRA bars./16 Kokesh does not purport to overturn this precedent. As to a FINRA bar, we see no basis to extend Kokesh's test for resolving a challenge to pecuniary sanctions under Section 2462.
Three reasons support our decision: (1) Congress explicitly authorized bars by mandating that FINRA adopt rules providing for them in appropriate cases; (2) the Supreme Court has recognized outside the context of Section 2462 that a deterrent purpose does not make a sanction punitive; and (3) FINRA bars are not penalties even under Kokesh's test.
I. FINRA bars cannot be categorically impermissible because Congress authorized FINRA to impose bars and gave the Commission authority to review such sanctions to ensure they are not impermissibly punitive and thus excessive or oppressive.
FINRA bars cannot be categorically impermissible under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, because Congress explicitly authorized FINRA to impose such bars and, where an individual barred by FINRA seeks Commission review, directed the Commission to determine whether the bar is excessive or oppressive. This congressional scheme thus contemplates both that some bars may be imposed by FINRA and that, where a bar is challenged, the Commission will assess whether the bar is impermissibly punitive--a judgment that the D.C. Circuit has emphasized must be based on the particular facts of the case./17
A. Sanctions Congress authorized cannot be categorically impermissible.
Congress authorized FINRA sanctions by requiring that any association of brokers and dealers that registers as a national securities association (such as FINRA) have rules providing that persons associated with its members may be disciplined by barring them from associating with a member./18 As discussed above, the Commission and the courts have long held that FINRA sanctions imposed pursuant to this authority are permissible only so long as the sanctions are designed not to punish offenders but to protect investors and the public interest./19
This understanding stems from the statutory text and structure. Our review of FINRA bars is governed by Section 19(e)(2) of the Exchange Act./20 Under that provision, if the Commission finds a sanction to be "excessive or oppressive" or to impose an unnecessary or undue burden on competition, the sanction may be modified or cancelled./21 In making that determination, the Commission must have "due regard for the public interest and the protection of investors."/22 This statutory language indicates that Congress did not intend FINRA to impose sanctions in a punitive way, but as a remedial measure./23 The inquiry is objective and focuses on the purpose of the bar, as opposed to the subjective impact on the respondent. In other words, if a sanction is imposed for punitive purposes as opposed to remedial purposes, the sanction is excessive or oppressive and therefore impermissible./24
* * *
1/ John M.E. Saad, Exchange Act Release No. 76118, 2015 WL 5904681 (Oct. 8, 2015) ("Saad III"). We first sustained FINRA's bar in 2010. John M.E. Saad, Exchange Act Release No. 62178, 2010 WL 2111287 (May 26, 2010) ("Saad I"). Saad sought review, and the D.C. Circuit remanded for us to consider potentially mitigating factors. Saad v. SEC, 718 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ("Saad II"). The proceedings following that remand resulted in Saad III.
2/ Saad v. SEC, 873 F.3d 297, 298 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ("Saad IV").
3/ Id. at 304.
4/ Id.
5/ Id. (citing Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017)).
6/ 137 S. Ct. at 1639.
7/ Id. at 1645 (emphasis original) (quoting Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 621 (1993)).
8/ See, e.g., Siegel v. SEC, 592 F.3d 147, 158 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
9/ See, e.g., Blair Alexander West, Exchange Act Release No. 74030, 2015 WL 137266, at *13 (Jan. 9, 2015), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 27 (2d Cir. 2016).
10/ Saad does not argue that the five-year statute of limitations in Section 2462 prohibits the imposition of FINRA's bar. Even assuming that FINRA bars are penalties within the meaning of Section 2462 (and we do not believe that they are) and that Section 2462 applies to FINRA proceedings (an issue we need not decide here), FINRA's action is not time-barred under that provision because it was brought within five years of Saad's misconduct. See Saad IV, 873 F.3d at 300-01 (Saad submitted false expense reports and forged receipts in 2006, lied to investigators in 2006 and 2007, and FINRA brought a disciplinary proceeding in 2007).
11/ 137 S. Ct. at 1639, 1642 n.3.
12/ Id. at 1642 (emphasis added).
13/ Hawker v. People of New York, 170 U.S. 189, 200 (1898) (citing Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265, 288 (1883) (holding that debarment of an attorney "is not for the purpose of punishment, but for the purpose of preserving the courts of justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice in them" and to "protect themselves from scandal and contempt, and the public from prejudice, by removing grossly improper persons from participation in the administration of the laws")). The Supreme Court has stated, in considering the procedural protections that must accompany attorney disbarment proceedings, that disbarring an attorney "is a punishment or penalty" such that the lawyer "is entitled to procedural due process." In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550 (1968). We recognize that debarments are significant remedial sanctions necessitating procedural protections. Our point is that Kokesh does not establish that all sanctions are penalties in all contexts unless they provide recompense to victims.
14/ Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 & n.2 (1938) (citing Hawker and Ex parte Wall).
15/ PAZ Secs., Inc. v. SEC, 494 F.3d 1059, 1065-66 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Wright v. SEC, 112 F.2d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 1940) then McCarthy v. SEC, 406 F.3d 179, 189 (2d Cir. 2005)).
16/ See, e.g., West v. SEC, 641 F. App'x 27, 30 (2d Cir. 2016) ("The purpose of a sanction is to protect investors, not to penalize brokers, although deterrence may be an additional consideration as part of the overall remedial inquiry."); May Capital Grp., Exchange Act Release No. 53796, 2006 WL 1312955, at *5 n.32 (May 12, 2006) (stating that whether "taken by this Commission or the NASD, the purpose of all [disciplinary actions under the Exchange Act] is remedial, not penal" because they are "not designed to punish, but to protect the public interest against further risk of harm") (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
17/ See PAZ Secs., 494 F.3d at 1064-65 (stating that when evaluating whether a sanction is "excessive or oppressive," the Commission must "give '[s]ome explanation addressing the nature of the violation and the mitigating factors presented in the record'") (quoting McCarthy, 406 F.3d at 189-90); cf. Steadman v. SEC, 603 F.2d 1126, 1137-1140 (5th Cir. 1979) (stating that "when the Commission chooses to order the most drastic remedies at its disposal, it has a greater burden to show with particularity the facts and policies that support those sanctions and why less severe action would not serve to protect investors"), aff'd on other grounds, 450 U.S. 91 (1981).
18/ Exchange Act Section 15A(b)(7), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78o-3(b)(7).
19/ See supra notes 15 and 16 and accompanying text.
20/ 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78s(e)(2).
21/ Exchange Act Section 19(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78s(e)(2). Saad has never argued that FINRA's bar imposes an unnecessary or undue burden on competition.
22/ Id.
23/ See Staten Secs. Corp., Exchange Act Release No. 18628, 1982 WL 32503, at *3 (Apr. 9, 1982) (stating that "Congress adopted the Securities Exchange Act and the Maloney Act amendment thereto as part of a comprehensive scheme to protect the public by maintaining the integrity of the securities markets" and finding that the sanctions NASD imposed were "neither excessive nor oppressive" and were not "penal" because they "serve[d] 'an important remedial function'") (citation omitted). See generally Klein v. SEC, 224 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1955) ("Section 15A, enacted in 1938 and generally known as the Maloney Act, is an amendment to the Securities Exchange Act . . . [that] provides for the establishment and registration with the Commission of national associations of securities dealers which, in the first instance, would supervise the conduct and ethical standards of its members and exercise disciplinary power if necessary. If a dealer is disciplined . . . he may appeal to the Commission . . . .").
24/ In contrast, when Congress intends to provide for penalties, it does so directly. See, e.g., Exchange Act Section 32, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78ff (authorizing criminal penalties); Exchange Act Section 21(d)(3), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u(d)(3) (authorizing civil monetary penalties).
View continuation at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2019/34-86751.pdf
SEC Issues Administrative Law Judges Order Involving David Pruitt
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission's Administrative Law Judges issued the following order (File No. 3-17950) involving David Pruitt:
In the Matter of David Pruitt, CPA
Order Extending Deadline for Stipulations
Respondent David Pruitt moved to extend the deadline for stipulations. The Division of Enforcement has consented to this request. The motion is granted. The deadline for stipulations is extended from August 23, 2019, to August 30, 2019.
James E. Grimes
Administrative Law Judge
Randolph J. Stayin Sworn In As U.S. International Trade Commissioner
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
Randolph J. Stayin, a Republican of Virginia, was sworn in today as a Commissioner of the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 1, 2019, for the term expiring on June 16, 2026.
Commissioner Stayin brings to the USITC more than 40 years of litigation, legislative, and regulatory advocacy experience in international trade policy, trade law, and regulatory compliance. As an attorney in private practice, he represented clients in antidumping and countervailing
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
Randolph J. Stayin, a Republican of Virginia, was sworn in today as a Commissioner of the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 1, 2019, for the term expiring on June 16, 2026.
Commissioner Stayin brings to the USITC more than 40 years of litigation, legislative, and regulatory advocacy experience in international trade policy, trade law, and regulatory compliance. As an attorney in private practice, he represented clients in antidumping and countervailingduty proceedings, including investigations, sunset reviews, administrative reviews, scope reviews, and anti-circumvention investigations. In addition, global safeguard investigations under section 201, investigations of unfair trade practices under section 301, section 232 national security investigations, and investigations related to the Generalized System of Preferences were also significant in his practice. He has litigated appeals before the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) dispute resolution panels.
Commissioner Stayin is the former Chief of Staff and Director of Legislation to U.S. Senator Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio. In this role, he led key legislative and political campaigns, advised on proposed legislation and policy implementation, served as the Senator's lead adviser in negotiating the passage of the Trade Act of 1974, and managed the Senator's legislative, political, and support staffs on Capitol Hill and in Ohio.
Prior to his confirmation, Commissioner Stayin also maintained a nonprofit trade association consulting practice, advising clients on a range of nonprofit issues, including legislation, policy, trade, contracts, corporation, employment, technical standards, and antitrust matters.
Commissioner Stayin holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Dartmouth College and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Cincinnati Law School. He is originally from Cincinnati, Ohio. He resides with his wife, Sharon, in Alexandria, VA, and has three children: Gregory, Todd, and Elizabeth.
The USITC is an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency. The agency investigates and makes determinations in proceedings involving imports claimed to injure a domestic industry or violate U.S. intellectual property rights; provides independent analysis and information on tariffs, trade, and competitiveness to the President and the Congress; and maintains the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule.
NRC Approves License Transfer for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the transfer of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station license from Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., to Holtec International, as owner, and Holtec Decommissioning International, as decommissioning operator.
The three companies requested the license transfer in November 2018. Once the purchase is finalized, Holtec and HDI have announced plans to expedite decommissioning and dismantling of the plant. The license transfer includes the dry cask spent fuel storage installation
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the transfer of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station license from Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., to Holtec International, as owner, and Holtec Decommissioning International, as decommissioning operator.
The three companies requested the license transfer in November 2018. Once the purchase is finalized, Holtec and HDI have announced plans to expedite decommissioning and dismantling of the plant. The license transfer includes the dry cask spent fuel storage installationat Pilgrim. The NRC order approving the license transfer is effective immediately, but the license transfer will not be finalized until the successful completion of the transaction between Entergy, Holtec and HDI. At that point, the NRC will issue a license amendment reflecting completion of the transfer.
Pilgrim is a boiling water reactor located in Plymouth, Mass., approximately 38 miles southeast of Boston. It permanently ceased operations in May.
In reviewing the license transfer application, the NRC staff considered the Holtec and HDI technical and financial qualifications, the adequacy of Pilgrim's decommissioning trust funds to complete the radiological decommissioning of the plant, and the adequacy of plans to manage the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel until it can be removed for storage or disposal elsewhere. The staff concluded that Holtec and HDI met the regulatory, legal, technical and financial requirements necessary to qualify as licensees.
The NRC order approving the transfer was issued Aug. 22. The order and other documents related to the review are available through the NRC ADAMS online documents database.
FERC Issues Weekly Digest for Week of August 19-23, 2019
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
Commission meetings and hearings
On August 20 and 22, the Commission met in executive session.
On August 22, the Commission held an open meeting.
Advisory opinions
Advisory Opinion 2019-14 (Arizona Libertarian Party)
On August 22, the Commission approved an advisory opinion request from the Arizona Libertarian Party (AZLP), concluding that the requestor may transfer funds to the National Libertarian Party but that the transfer would cause AZLP to exceed the monetary threshold requiring the AZLP to register
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
Commission meetings and hearings
On August 20 and 22, the Commission met in executive session.
On August 22, the Commission held an open meeting.
Advisory opinions
Advisory Opinion 2019-14 (Arizona Libertarian Party)
On August 22, the Commission approved an advisory opinion request from the Arizona Libertarian Party (AZLP), concluding that the requestor may transfer funds to the National Libertarian Party but that the transfer would cause AZLP to exceed the monetary threshold requiring the AZLP to registerand report as a political committee.
Advisory Opinion Request 2019-10 (Price for Congress)
On August 22, the Commission discussed four draft advisory opinions in response to an advisory opinion request from Price for Congress, the principal campaign committee of former Representative Dr. Thomas Price, but was unable to reach consensus by the required four affirmative votes. The requestor asked whether it may contribute committee assets to a non-profit organization and whether that organization may engage in certain activities if Dr. Price will serve as its president and CEO.
Advisory opinion request received
Advisory Opinion Request 2019-16 (Shemanski)
On August 22, the Commission made public an advisory opinion request from Philip Shemanski. The requestor asks whether he may use the initials of a candidate's name in the name of an unauthorized political committee. The Commission will accept written comments on the request during the 10-day period following publication of the request (no later than September 3) and must issue a response no later than 60 days after the receipt of the complete request, that is, by October 18, 2019.
Enforcement
The Commission made public four closed cases and one Statement of Reasons, as follows. For more information, see the case documents in the Enforcement Query System.
MURs 7511
COMPLAINANT: Joseph Macaluso
RESPONDENT: Alison Hartson 2018 and Alison Hartson, in her official capacity as treasurer (the Committee)
SUBJECT: The complaint alleged that the Committee failed to report a disputed debt for campaign consulting services. Hartson was a 2018 primary candidate for California's United States Senate seat.
DISPOSITION: The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter in consideration of Commission priorities. The Commission observed that the Committee amended its reports to include the disputed debt.
MUR 7564
COMPLAINANT: Matt Stevens
RESPONDENT: AJ Kern for Congress and John W. Kern, in his official capacity as treasurer (the Committee)
SUBJECT: The complaint alleged that the committee did not file a 2018 Pre-General Report or a 2018 Post-General Report because AJ Kern, a 2018 candidate from Minnesota's 6th Congressional District, asked the Minnesota Secretary of State to count any general election write-in votes she received.
DISPOSITION: The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the complaint in consideration of Commission priorities.
MUR 7576
COMPLAINANT: David Xaviel
RESPONDENTS: Jackhole Productions; CBS Corporation; The Walt Disney Company; and Spartina Productions Inc.
SUBJECT: The complaint alleged that ABC and Jimmy Kimmel Live made an unreported in-kind contribution because the show was a commercial for the Democratic Party and that CBS and the Late show with Stephen Colbert allowed "deliberate and calculated propaganda" on the show.
DISPOSITION: The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter in consideration of Commission priorities. The Commission observed that the media exemption appears to have covered the respondents' activities.
MUR 7604
COMPLAINANT: Bobbie Todd
RESPONDENT: Friends of Vangie Williams and Stacy Bullock, in her official capacity as treasurer (the Committee)
SUBJECT: The complaint alleged that the Committee failed to report certain debts and obligations. Williams was a 2018 candidate for Virginia's 1st Congressional District.
DISPOSITION: The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter in consideration of Commission priorities. The Commission observed the modest amount at issue and partial remedial actions taken by the Committee.
MURs 6940, 7097, 7146, 7160 & 7193 (Correct the Record and Elizabeth Cohen, in her official capacity as treasurer; Hillary for America and Elizabeth Jones, in her official capacity as treasurer; Priorities USA Action and Greg Speed, in his official capacity as treasurer ; David Brock; Hillary Rodham Clinton; DNC Services Corp./DNC and William Q. Derrough, in his official capacity as treasurer ; Charlie Baker; John Podesta; Robby Mook; Dennis Cheng; Elizabeth Christina Reynolds; Karen Finney; Mary Pat Bonner; and American Bridge 21st Century and Rodell Mollineau, in his official capacity as treasurer). On August 22, Vice Chairman Matthew S. Petersen and Commissioner Caroline C. Hunter issued a Statement of Reasons.
Administrative fines
The Commission made public four closed cases, as follows. For more information, see the case documents in the Enforcement Query System.
AF 3572
Seth Hall for Congress and Seth B. Hall, in his official capacity as treasurer. The Commission made a final determination and assessed a civil penalty of $410.
AF 3622
American Principles and Eytan Laor, in his official capacity as treasurer. The Commission made a final determination and assessed a civil penalty of $3,296.
AF 3664
American Academy of Emergency Medicine Political Action Committee AAEM PAC and William T. Durkin, Jr., in his official capacity as treasurer. The Commission made a final determination and closed the file.
AF 3667
Anesthesia Service Medical Group Advocacy Fund and C. April Boling, in her official capacity as treasurer. The Commission made a final determination and closed the file.
Audits
Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the South Dakota Democratic Party
On August 22, the Commission approved an Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the South Dakota Democratic Party, covering campaign finance activity between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016. The Commission approved findings relating to misstatement of financial activity (increased activity), contributions from unregistered organizations, and reporting of debts and obligations.
Litigation
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. FEC (Case No. 19-XX) On August 19, the Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
Regulations and agency procedures
Internet Ad Disclaimers Rulemaking Proposal for REG 2011-02 (Internet Communication Disclaimers and Definition of "Public Communication")
On August 22, the Commission discussed the status of the Internet Ad Disclaimers Rulemaking.
REG 2019-02 (Amend 11 C.F.R. Section 104.5(c)) - Notification of Availability
On August 22, the Commission approved a Notification of Availability seeking comment on whether the Commission should initiate a full rulemaking on a proposal to require any unauthorized committee that starts an election year as a quarterly filer to maintain that status through any primary elections in which the committee is involved.
REG 2019-03 (Mailing List Exchange) - Notification of Availability
On August 22, the Commission approved a Notification of Availability seeking comment on whether the Commission should initiate a full rulemaking on a proposal to amend 11 C.F.R. Section 104.3 to clarify that a political committee's receipt or disbursement of a membership or other valuable list must be reported, even when the list was received or disbursed as part of a purported equal value list swap.
REG 2019-04 (Reporting Segregated Party Accounts) - Notification of Availability
On August 22, the Commission approved a Notification of Availability seeking comment on whether the Commission should initiate a full rulemaking on a proposal to promulgate rules to specifically require reporting of receipts and disbursements of the accounts created by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015.
Press releases
FEC approves advisory opinion, Notifications of Availability, and Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum (issued August 22)
FEC announces appointment of Neven F. Stipanovic as Associate General Counsel (issued August 22)
Upcoming Commission meetings and hearings
September 10 and 12: The Commission is scheduled to meet in executive session.
September 12: The Commission is scheduled to hold an open meeting.
Meeting dates are subject to change. Please contact the Press Office the week of the scheduled meeting for confirmation.
Upcoming reporting due dates
September 20: September Monthly reports are due. For more information on monthly reporting dates, refer to the 2019 Monthly Reporting page of the Commission website.
Upcoming educational programs
On August 27-28, the Commission will host a Regional Conference in Chicago, IL for candidates, political parties, and political action committees.
Additional research materials
FEC Notify: Want to be notified by email when campaign finance reports are received by the agency? Sign up here.
Additional research materials about the agency, campaign finance information, and election results are available through the Library section of the Commission website.
Printed copies of the 2019 edition of Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are available. Contact the Commission's Information Division at (202) 694-1100 or (800) 424-9530 (press 6, when prompted) to order printed copies of the CFR at no charge. You may also email the Information Division to place an order at info@fec.gov.
The Combined Federal State Disclosure and Election Directory is available. This publication identifies the federal and state agencies responsible for the disclosure of campaign finances, lobbying, personal finances, public financing, candidates on the ballot, election results, spending on state initiatives and other financial filings.
Federal Elections 2016: Election Results for the U.S. President, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives is available. The data was compiled from the official vote totals published by state election offices. To order a printed copy, please contact the FEC's Public Records Office at 800/424-9530 (option 2) or 202/694-1120, or send an email to pubrec@fec.gov.
The FEC Record is available as a continuously updated online news source.
Join the FEC on Twitter and YouTube
Follow @FEC on Twitter to receive the latest information on agency updates, news releases, and weekly activity. Subscribe to our YouTube channel, FECTube: FECConnect on Demand, to watch instructional videos that have been designed to help candidates and committees comply with federal campaign finance laws. Note that the FEC is not currently available through other social media platforms at this time. The use of the agency's logo, name, and likeness on other media has not been authorized by the FEC.
FCC Enforcement Bureau Issues Order Involving Zito Canton Vs. PPL Electric Utilities
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission\'s Enforcement Bureau issued the text of the following order (File No. EB-17-MD-005):
In the Matter of Zito Canton, LLC, Complainant
v.
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Respondent
Proceeding No. 17-284
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Adopted: August 23, 2019
Released: August 23, 2019
By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division:
1. On November 13, 2017, Zito Canton, LLC (Zito) filed with this Commission an amended pole attachment complaint against PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL) pursuant to section 224 of the Communications
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 -- The Federal Communications Commission\'s Enforcement Bureau issued the text of the following order (File No. EB-17-MD-005):
In the Matter of Zito Canton, LLC, Complainant
v.
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, Respondent
Proceeding No. 17-284
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Adopted: August 23, 2019
Released: August 23, 2019
By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division:
1. On November 13, 2017, Zito Canton, LLC (Zito) filed with this Commission an amended pole attachment complaint against PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL) pursuant to section 224 of the CommunicationsAct of 1934, as amended (Act)./1 PPL filed a response to Zito's Complaint on November 20, 2017./2 Zito filed a reply on December 11, 2017./3
2. On August 21, 2019, the parties filed ajoint motion seeking dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice on the ground that the parties executed a confidential settlement agreement regarding this dispute./4 The Motion states that "[d]ismissal of the Complaint will serve the public interest by eliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of the associated time and resources of the parties and the Commission and will promote the private resolution of disputes."/5
3. We are satisfied that granting the Motion will serve the public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need for further expenditure of time and resources by the parties and the Commission.
4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 224 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 154(i), 154(j), 208, 224, sections 1.3, 1.720-1.740, and 1.1401-1415 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec. 1.3, 1.720-1.740, 1.1401-1415, and the authority delegated in Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec. 0.111, 0.3 11, that the Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint IS DISMISSED with prejudice, and that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Rosemary McEnery
Chief
Market Disputes Resolution Division
Enforcement Bureau
* * *
1/ Amended Pole Attachment Complaint, No. 17-284, File No. EB-17-MD-005 (filed Nov. 13, 2017) (Complaint).
2/ Response of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation to Pole Attachment Complaint Filed by Zito Canton, LLC, No. 17-284, File No. EB-17-MD-005 (filed Nov. 20, 2017).
3/ Zito Canton, LLC's Reply in Support of Amended Pole Attachment Complaint, No. 17-284, File No. EB-l7-MD-005 (filed Dec. 11,2017).
4/ Joint Motion to Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice, No. 17-284, File No. EB-17-MD-005 (filed Aug. 21, 2019) (Motion).
5/ Id. at 2.
