(a) No; §§ 111.1 through 111.8 and 111.20 through 111.24 shall apply to all compliance matters. This subpart will apply, rather than §§ 111.9 through 111.19, when the Commission, on the basis of information ascertained by the Commission in the normal course of carrying out its supervisory responsibilities, and when appropriate, determines that the compliance matter should be subject to this subpart. If the Commission determines that the violation should not be subject to this subpart, then the violation will be subject to all sections of subpart A of this part.
(b) Subpart B will apply to compliance matters resulting from a complaint filed pursuant to 11 CFR 111.4 through 111.7 if the complaint alleges a violation of 52 U.S.C. 30104(a). If the complaint alleges violations of any other provision of any statute or regulation over which the Commission has jurisdiction, subpart A will apply to the alleged violations of these other provisions.
[65 FR 31794, May 19, 2000, as amended at 79 FR 77848, Dec. 29, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
McChesney v. Petersen, 275 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Neb. 2016).
“(citing 11 CFR 111.31(a)). The Commission further explained that it implemented the 2014 Regulatory Extension of the Administrative Fines Program “without advance notice or an opportunity for comment because [the extension] falls under the ‘good cause’ exemption of the…”
McChesney v. Peterson, 226 F. Supp. 3d 920 (D. Neb. 2016).
“(citing 11 CFR 111.31(a)). The Commission further explained that it implemented the 2014 Regulatory Extension of the Administrative Fines Program “without advance notice or an opportunity for comment because [the extension] falls under the ‘good cause’ exemption of the…”
— 11 C.F.R. § 111.31(a) — 2 cases
McChesney v. Petersen, 275 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Neb. 2016).
“(citing 11 CFR 111.31(a)). The Commission further explained that it implemented the 2014 Regulatory Extension of the Administrative Fines Program “without advance notice or an opportunity for comment because [the extension] falls under the ‘good cause’ exemption of the…”
McChesney v. Peterson, 226 F. Supp. 3d 920 (D. Neb. 2016).
“(citing 11 CFR 111.31(a)). The Commission further explained that it implemented the 2014 Regulatory Extension of the Administrative Fines Program “without advance notice or an opportunity for comment because [the extension] falls under the ‘good cause’ exemption of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.