[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78014-78017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27495]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 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.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 21, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 78014]]



FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

5 CFR Part 2429

[Docket Number: 0-MC-33]


Miscellaneous and General Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority.

ACTION: Proposed rule and proposed rescission of general statement of 
policy or guidance and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA or Authority) 
seeks public comments on a proposed revision to its regulations and a 
proposed rescission of its general statement of policy or guidance 
(policy statement) in Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 71 FLRA 571 
(2020) (Member Abbott concurring; then-Member DuBester dissenting). The 
proposed revision and rescission concern the intervals at which Federal 
employees may revoke their voluntary, written assignments of payroll 
deductions for the payment of regular and periodic dues allotted to 
their exclusive representative. Specifically, in addition to rescinding 
OPM, the Authority proposes either revising its regulation entitled 
``Revocation of Assignments'' to provide that dues revocations may be 
processed only at one-year intervals, or, alternatively, rescinding 
that regulation in its entirety. The Authority seeks comments on these 
proposals.

DATES: To be considered, comments must be received on or before January 
20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, which must include the caption 
``Miscellaneous and General Requirements,'' by one of the following 
methods:
     Email: [email protected]. Include ``FLRA Docket No. 
0-MC-33'' in the subject line of the message.
     Mail: Brandon Bradley, Chief, Case Intake and Publication, 
Federal Labor Relations Authority, Docket Room, Suite 200, 1400 K 
Street NW, Washington, DC 20424-0001.
    Instructions: Do not mail written comments if they have been 
submitted via email. Interested persons who mail written comments must 
submit an original and 4 copies of each written comment, with any 
enclosures, on 8\1/2\ x 11 inch paper. Do not deliver comments by hand.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Bradley, Chief, Case Intake 
and Publication at [email protected] or at: (771) 444-5809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Case Number 0-MC-33, the National 
Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) has filed a petition, under Sec.  
2429.28 of the Authority's regulations, 5 CFR 2429.28, to amend Sec.  
2429.19 of those regulations, 5 CFR 2429.19. For the following reasons, 
the Authority hereby grants NTEU's petition and proposes to: (1) 
rescind the policy statement that the Authority issued in OPM, 71 FLRA 
571; and (2) amend 5 CFR 2429.19 to clarify that, once an employee has 
given an agency a voluntary, written assignment authorizing payroll 
deduction of regular and periodic dues for the employee's exclusive 
representative (voluntary dues assignment), the employee may thereafter 
revoke that assignment only at yearly intervals, or, in the 
alternative, rescind Sec.  2429.19 in its entirety.
    Section 7115(a) of the Statute provides, in pertinent part, that 
voluntary dues assignments ``may not be revoked for a period of 1 
year.'' 5 U.S.C. 7115(a). In its earliest years, in U.S. Army, U.S. 
Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command, Warren, Michigan 
(Army), 7 FLRA 194 (1981), recons. denied, 8 FLRA 806 (1982), the 
Authority unanimously concluded that Section 7115(a) allows employees 
to revoke voluntary dues assignments only at one-year intervals. See 
id. at 199. The Authority based this conclusion on a detailed 
assessment of Section 7115(a)'s wording and legislative history, along 
with the Statute's overall purposes. See id. at 196-99.
    The Authority applied this interpretation of Section 7115(a) for 
nearly four decades. See United Power Trades Org., 62 FLRA 493, 495 
(2008); AFGE, AFL-CIO, 51 FLRA 1427, 1433 n.5 (1996); NAGE, SEIU, AFL-
CIO, 40 FLRA 657, 688-89 (1991); AFGE, AFL-CIO, Dep't of Educ. Council 
of AFGE Locs., 34 FLRA 1078, 1080-82 (1990); AFGE, AFL-CIO, Loc. 1931, 
32 FLRA 1023, 1029 (1988); Dep't of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval 
Shipyard, Portsmouth, N.H., 19 FLRA 586, 589 (1985); Veterans Admin., 
Lakeside Med. Ctr., Chi., Ill., 12 FLRA 244, 246 (1983); Dep't of HHS, 
SSA, Off. of Program Serv. Ctrs. & Ne. Program Serv. Ctr., 11 FLRA 618, 
620 (1983); Dep't of HHS, SSA, Bureau of Field Operations (N.Y.C., 
N.Y.), 11 FLRA 600, 602-03, recons. denied, 12 FLRA 754 (1983).
    Then, in 2020, a majority of the Authority's Members issued the 
policy statement in OPM, 71 FLRA 571. The majority rejected the FLRA's 
prior, longstanding interpretation of Section 7115(a) and, instead, 
found that the ``most reasonable way to interpret'' Section 7115(a) was 
to find that it addressed revocations of voluntary dues assignments 
only during the first year of an assignment--and that, after the first 
year, employees should be permitted to revoke their voluntary dues 
assignments at any time. Id. at 572-73. In so finding, the majority 
stated, among other things, that, ``[e]xcept for the limiting 
conditions in [Section] 7115(b), which [Section] 7115(a) explicitly 
acknowledges, nothing in the text of [Section] 7115(a) expressly 
addresses the revocation of dues assignments after the first year.'' 
Id. at 572. At the same time, however, the majority declined to 
consider the legislative history that the Authority had discussed at 
length in Army, on the ground that Section 7115(a)'s pertinent wording 
``is not ambiguous.'' Id. at 573 n.23.
    Then-Member DuBester dissented. See id. at 576-79.
    Subsequently, on March 19, 2020, the majority, with then-Member 
DuBester again dissenting, published a notice of proposed rulemaking in 
the Federal Register. 85 FR 15742 (March 19, 2020). On July 9, 2020, 
the majority--again, with then-Member DuBester dissenting--issued a 
final rule, with an effective date of August 10, 2020. 85 FR 41169 
(July 9, 2020). That final rule, set forth at 5 CFR 2429.19, states 
that an employee may initiate the revocation of a dues assignment 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7115(a) at any time after the expiration of an 
initial one-year period following the dues assignment.
    On April 1, 2022, NTEU filed the above-mentioned petition for 
rulemaking (rulemaking petition),

[[Page 78015]]

arguing that the Authority should amend Sec.  2429.19 to provide for 
dues revocations only at one-year intervals. Rulemaking Pet. at 9. NTEU 
asserts that Section 7115(a) of the Statute requires the Authority to 
return to the rule that Army established. Id. at 3. NTEU contends that, 
although Section 7115(a)'s wording does not address dues revocations 
after the initial one-year period, its legislative history establishes 
that Congress intended to allow such revocations only at one-year 
intervals. Id. (citing Army, 7 FLRA at 198-99). According to NTEU: 
before the Statute was enacted, dues revocations could occur only at 
six-month intervals, id. at 4 (citing Labor-Management Relations in the 
Federal Service, E.O. No. 11,491, Sec.  21, 34 FR 17605, 17614 (Oct. 
31, 1969)); and, by passing the Statute, ``Congress unquestionably 
intended to strengthen the position of federal unions,'' id. (citing 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89, 107 
(1983)). Contrary to that intent, NTEU claims, current Sec.  2429.19 
provides federal-sector unions ``with less stability and fewer 
collective-bargaining rights'' than they had before the Statute's 
enactment. Id. In particular, NTEU claims that, under current Sec.  
2429.19, unions no longer have the right to regular dues-revocation 
intervals--and cannot even bargain over such intervals. Id. at 4-5. 
NTEU claims that the Authority has not explained the ``basic 
contradiction'' between current Sec.  2429.19 and Congress's intent. 
Id. at 4.
    In addition, NTEU argues that, for three reasons, its proposed 
regulatory revision would be ``good, reasonable policy.'' Id. at 5.
    First, NTEU argues that doing so would restore financial security 
and predictability for unions. Id. NTEU asserts that, for those NTEU 
bargaining units that are not yet subject to current Sec.  2429.19, 
NTEU can: plan its fiscal-year budget because it can know, with a 
reasonable degree of certainty, how much dues revenue will be 
available; process revocations all at once, which is more efficient 
than processing them one by throughout the year; and, consequently, 
concentrate more of its resources on collective bargaining and 
improving employees' working lives. Id. at 6. According to NTEU, 
agencies also would likely benefit from the efficiency of processing 
revocations once per year. Id.
    Second, NTEU contends that revising current Sec.  2429.19 to 
provide for dues revocation only at one-year intervals would restore 
unions' bargaining posture. Id. at 6. According to NTEU, since 1981, it 
has relied on Army when drafting and negotiating dues-withholding 
provisions. Id. However, when current Sec.  2429.19 took effect, 
``suddenly those time-tested provisions became nonnegotiable.'' Id. 
Because federal-sector unions ``have little to bargain over in the 
first place,'' NTEU contends that current Sec.  2429.19 
``diminish[es]'' unions' role in collective bargaining. Id. (citing 
NTEU v. Chertoff, 452 F.3d 839, 853-54 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
    Third, NTEU argues that revising Sec.  2429.19 would honor employee 
choice. Id. NTEU contends that allowing revocations only at one-year 
intervals would not infringe on employees' rights, under Section 7102 
of the Statute, to refrain from joining or assisting a union. Id. 
(citing 85 FR 41171). NTEU notes that joining a union and paying dues 
by payroll deduction always has been an employee's choice, and that the 
Federal Government's payroll-deduction form, Standard Form (SF) 1187, 
expressly states that ``completing this form is voluntary'' and tells 
employees when and how they may cancel their deductions. Id. According 
to NTEU, courts have held that: dues assignments are voluntary, binding 
contracts, id. at 7-8 (citing Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 950-51 
(9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2795 (2021); IAM Dist. 10 & 
Loc. Lodge 873 v. Allen, 904 F.3d 490, 506 (7th Cir. 2018) (IAM), cert. 
denied, 139 S. Ct. 1599 (2019); NLRB v. U.S. Postal Serv., 827 F.2d 
548, 554 (9th Cir. 1987)); and requiring employees to honor those 
assignments until the next annual revocation period does not force them 
to join or assist a union, id. at 8 (citing Belgau, 975 F.3d at 950; 
IAM, 904 F.3d at 506 (quoting SeaPak v. Indus., Tech., & Prof'l Emps., 
Div. of Nat'l Mar. Union, AFL-CIO v.W.R. & Grace Co., 300 F. Supp. 
1197, 1201 (S.D. Ga. 1969), aff'd, 423 F.2d 1229 (5th Cir. 1970), 
aff'd, 400 U.S. 985 (1971)). Further, NTEU asserts that temporarily 
irrevocable payment authorizations are common and enforceable in other 
contexts. Id. (citing IAM, 904 F.3d at 506 (health-insurance-premium 
payroll deductions); Fisk v. Inslee, 759 Fed. Appx. 632, 634 (D. Or. 
2019) (consumer contracts)).
    Finally, NTEU argues that there has been ``little reliance'' on 
current Sec.  2429.19 because (1) it has taken effect only for 
bargaining units whose collective-bargaining agreements were not in 
force on the rule's effective date of August 10, 2020, and (2) the U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management has not yet revised SF 1187, so even for 
units where current Sec.  2429.19 applies, employees may not even be 
aware of it. Id. at 9. Consequently, NTEU claims, returning to the 
``[forty]-year status quo under Army'' would be a ``virtually seamless 
transition.'' Id.
    In the Authority's view, NTEU's rulemaking petition raises several 
legal and policy reasons for rescinding the policy statement in OPM, 
which led to the promulgation of current Sec.  2429.19, and for 
rescinding or amending Sec.  2429.19 to return the Authority to its 
prior interpretation of Section 7115(a) of the Statute. Accordingly, 
the Authority proposes to: (1) rescind the policy statement in OPM; and 
(2) revise current Sec.  2429.19 to provide that dues revocations may 
be processed only at one-year intervals, or, in the alternative, 
rescind Sec.  2429.19 in its entirety.
    Thus, as noted above, the Authority hereby solicits comments on 
these proposals, including, but not limited to, comments addressing:
     Whether the proposals are consistent with the Statute 
(including Sections 7102 and 7115(a)) and administrative and judicial 
precedent (including Council 214, 835 F.2d 1458);
     The extent to which agencies have implemented current 
Sec.  2429.19, and any positive and negative effects of such 
implementation;
     What rules should govern if the Authority rescinds, rather 
than amends, Sec.  2429.19;
     Whether there are other alternatives that the Authority 
should consider, such as amending Sec.  2429.19 to allow for an annual, 
one-month window period for revoking dues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), the Chairman of the FLRA has determined that this 
proposed rule, as amended, will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, because this proposed rule 
applies only to Federal agencies, Federal employees, and labor 
organizations representing those employees.

Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs

    This proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive 
Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017) because it is related to 
agency organization, management, or personnel, and it is not a 
``significant regulatory action,'' as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 
12866 (58 FR 51735, Sept. 30, 1993)

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the

[[Page 78016]]

National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 4, 1999), this proposed 
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
preparation of a federalism assessment.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in section 
3(a) and (b)(2) of E.O. 12988 (61 FR 4729, Feb. 5, 1996).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule change will not result in the expenditure by 
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will 
not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no 
actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This action is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This 
proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of 
$100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based 
companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and 
export markets.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The amended regulations contain no additional information 
collection or record-keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 2429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Labor 
management relations.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FLRA proposes to amend 
5 CFR part 2429 as follows:

PART 2429--MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 2429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7134; Sec.  2429.18 also issued under 28 
U.S.C. 2112(a).

Option 1

0
2a. Revise Sec.  2429.19 to read as follows:


Sec.  2429.19  Revocation of assignments.

    Authorized dues assignments under 5 U.S.C. 7115(b) may be revoked 
only at intervals of one year.

Option 2


Sec.  2429.19  [Removed]

0
2b. Remove Sec.  2429.19.

    Approved: December 14, 2022.
Rebecca Osborne,
Federal Register Liaison, Federal Labor Relations Authority.

    Note: The following will not appear in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.

Member Kiko, Dissenting:

    It is unsurprising that the Petitioner would seek to reinstate a 
rule making it more onerous for employees to revoke dues-withdrawal 
authorization. What is surprising, though, is that the majority 
indulges the Petitioner by commencing this premature, unnecessary 
notice-and-comment rulemaking. When the Authority very recently 
solicited public comment on this regulation, we heard from employees 
who were frustrated with narrow form-submission windows occurring on 
indecipherable anniversary dates. In 2020, the Authority enacted a 
regulation that is consistent with the Federal Service Labor-Management 
Relations Statute (the Statute) and assures employees the fullest 
freedom in the exercise of their rights. Regrettably, the majority's 
proposed rulemaking would discard a valuable reform without affording 
it even a reasonable trial period. In addition to finding this 
enterprise premature and ill-advised, I write separately to express 
several other disagreements with the majority's formulation of the 
Notice.
    Initially, I note that the petition for rulemaking did not request 
the rescission of OPM, 71 FLRA 571 (2020), so it is puzzling how the 
majority could propose rescinding that decision as the result of 
granting the petition. Further, I do not believe that an Authority 
decision can be rescinded through a process that is designed to make 
rules. If there is legal authority to support this unprecedented 
approach, then it is missing from the Notice. Notably, when the 
Authority promulgated the current version of 5 CFR 2429.19, it did not 
purport to ``rescind'' U.S. Army, U.S. Army Materiel Development and 
Readiness Command, Warren, Michigan, 7 FLRA 194 (1981), which set forth 
the Authority's previous interpretation of Sec.  7115(a) of the 
Statute.
    Disappointingly, the Notice fails to address the convenient flip-
flopping of the Petitioner's position on the Authority's regulatory 
powers. Just a few years ago, the Petitioner asserted that the 
Authority lacked the power to issue a rule on this topic, but now the 
Petitioner insists that the Authority must exercise its rulemaking 
power in this area. Compare NTEU, Comment Letter on Proposed Rule 
Concerning Miscellaneous and General Requirements (Apr. 9, 2020) at 7 
(stating that the Authority would ``exceed its regulatory power'' by 
issuing a rule to govern when employees may revoke a dues assignment), 
with Pet. at 1 (stating that the Petitioner's proposed rule ``would 
make sound use of the Authority's rulemaking power'').
    Some of the Petitioner's other claims are equally confusing. For 
example, the Petitioner claims that very few agencies and unions have 
implemented Sec.  2429.19 because their existing collective-bargaining 
agreements predate the regulation's promulgation. Pet. at 9. Yet the 
Petitioner also claims that the regulation is seriously harming unions. 
Id. at 4-7. These two claims are contradictory: If very few unions have 
been complying with the regulation, then the Petitioner must be 
exaggerating the scope of the regulation's alleged harm in order to 
support the petition. Consequently, the Petitioner ought to explain its 
contradictory claims on the Authority's regulatory powers and the 
alleged harms from the regulation.
    Appropriately, the Notice solicits comments about whether the 
Petitioner's proposed rule is consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit's decision that Sec.  7115(a) of the Statute is 
designed primarily for the benefit of employees, not unions. AFGE, 
Council 214, AFL-CIO v. FLRA, 835 F.2d 1458, 1460-61 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 
The Petitioner clearly views Sec.  7115(a) as a congressional gift to 
unions, but judicial precedent says otherwise. Compare Pet. at 3 
(stating that ``the purpose of [Sec.  ]7115(a) was to create more 
financial stability and predictability for unions than before'' the 
Statute was enacted), with AFGE, Council 214, 835 F.2d at 1460 (stating 
that Sec.  7115(a) ``was designed for the primary benefit and 
convenience of the employee''). The Petitioner offers three reasons why 
its proposed rule would be good policy, but none concerns a benefit to 
employees. According to the Petitioner, the proposed rule would 
``provide unions with financial security and predictability,'' Pet. at 
5, ``restore unions' status at the bargaining table,'' id. at 6, and 
``[h]onor[]'' employees' choices by (ironically) restricting

[[Page 78017]]

employees' choices, id. at 7. As such, the proposed rule's subjugation 
of employees' individual interests to federal unions' institutional 
interests appears to conflict with Sec.  7115(a)'s animating purpose.
    Moreover, if the majority must issue this premature Notice, then I 
am gratified that the Notice invites comments on whether there should 
be a one-month, government-wide revocation period for terminating 
authorizations of dues withholding. This idea comes from one of the 
more interesting arguments in the petition. Specifically, the 
Petitioner asserts that ``the most apt analogy'' to the system of dues-
withholding revocation that the Petitioner desires is ``health 
insurance premium payroll deductions.'' Pet. at 8. In that regard, the 
Petitioner notes that once federal employees select their health 
insurance, they generally must wait a year to change or cancel that 
insurance ``during a one-month window period called open season.'' Id. 
In keeping with the Notice, I urge commenters to offer their views on 
whether to amend Sec.  2429.19 so that employees have at least one full 
month each year--occurring at the same time for all federal employees--
to decide whether to terminate dues withholding.
    There are good reasons to explore a framework for dues-withholding 
revocation that resembles the federal open season for health insurance. 
Under the previous system of dues-withholding revocation, before Sec.  
2429.19 was adopted, most union members could revoke their dues 
assignments only during short window periods that preceded the 
anniversary dates of the members' union enrollments. In an attempt to 
ensure higher and more predictable dues revenues, most federal unions 
erected obstacles to revocations. Miscellaneous and General 
Requirements, 85 FR 41,169, 41,171 (July 9, 2020) (discussing barriers 
to dues-withholding revocations). The Petitioner's proposed rule would 
reauthorize such obstacles. Far from a highly advertised, month-long 
decision period like open season, most employees under the previous 
system had about two weeks to revoke their previously authorized dues 
withholdings. Moreover, revocation forms could be rejected if employees 
did not know their anniversary dates, or did not correctly calculate 
their unique window periods using contract wording that was 
indecipherable to most readers. Miscellaneous and General Requirements, 
85 FR at 41,171 (providing, as an example, that a revocation form 
``must be submitted to the Union between the anniversary date of the 
effective date of the dues withholding and twenty-one (21) calendar 
days prior to the anniversary date''). Rather than seeking regulatory 
authorization to make revocations more difficult again, the Petitioner 
could ensure predictable revenues--and better serve employees--by 
offering quality benefits and services that convince union members of 
the value in continuing their dues payments.
    Although the Notice necessarily requests comments on the 
implications of potentially rescinding Sec.  2429.19 entirely, I wish 
that the majority had included in the Notice at least a glimpse of the 
potential consequences of this approach, in order to better focus any 
comments on this question. By mentioning rescission as little more than 
an afterthought, the Notice hampers commenters' abilities to offer 
thoughtful perspectives. Therefore, I encourage commenters to offer 
fulsome assessments of the potential rescission scenario--in 
particular, how it would affect the Authority's ability to adjudicate 
future dues-revocation disputes.
    Finally, for the sake of accuracy, I wish to emphasize that Sec.  
2429.19 had both an ``effective date'' and an ``applicability date.'' 
Miscellaneous and General Requirements, 85 FR at 41,169. This 
distinction was critical to the Authority's conclusion that the rule 
applied only to the revocation of assignments that were authorized on 
or after August 10, 2020, and not to the revocation of assignments that 
were authorized before that date. See Office of the Federal Register, 
Document Drafting Handbook, Aug. 2018 Ed. (Rev. 1.4, dated Jan. 7, 
2022) 3-9 to 3-10 (discussing the distinction between effective dates 
and applicability dates), https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf.
    I continue to strongly disagree that the Authority should expend 
valuable resources on this rulemaking. However, if commenters offer the 
benefit of their insights on the important matters that I have raised 
here, as well as the matters set forth in the Notice, then I hope that 
the majority will afford their perspectives the careful consideration 
that they deserve. I assure potential commenters that I will afford 
their views such consideration.

[FR Doc. 2022-27495 Filed 12-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P