[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2526-2530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00678]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 465

RIN 3084-AB76


Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Initial notice of informal hearing; final notice of informal 
hearing; list of Hearing Participants; requests for submissions from 
Hearing Participants.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') 
recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPRM'') in the 
Federal Register, titled ``Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and 
Testimonials'' (``Reviews and Testimonials Rule'' or ``Rule''), which 
would prohibit certain specified unfair or deceptive acts or practices 
involving consumer reviews or testimonials. The NPRM announced the 
opportunity for interested parties to present their positions orally at 
an informal hearing. Three commenters requested to present their 
positions orally at the informal hearing.

DATES: 
    Hearing date: The informal hearing will be conducted virtually on 
February 13, 2024, at 10 a.m. Eastern, and the Commission's Chief 
Presiding Officer, the Chair, has appointed Administrative Law Judge 
for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Honorable Carol Fox 
Foelak, to serve as the presiding officer of the informal hearing.
    Participation deadline: If you are a hearing participant and would 
like to submit your oral presentation in writing or file a 
supplementary documentary submission, you can do so by submitting a 
comment on this rulemaking docket. You must do so on or before January 
30, 2024. Write ``Reviews and Testimonials Rule; Project No. P214504'' 
on your submission.

ADDRESSES: Hearing Participants may submit their oral presentations in 
writing or file supplementary documentary submissions, online or on 
paper, by following the instructions in Part IV of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section below. Write

[[Page 2527]]

``Reviews and Testimonials Rule; Project No. P214504'' on your 
submission, and file it online through https://www.regulations.gov. If 
you prefer to file your submission on paper, mail it via overnight 
service to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of 
the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex R), 
Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Ostheimer, Attorney, (202) 
326-2699, Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer 
Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 8, 2022, the Commission published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``ANPRM'') in the Federal Register announcing that 
the Commission was considering the promulgation of regulations to 
prohibit certain specified unfair or deceptive acts or practices 
involving consumer reviews or testimonials. See 87 FR 67424 (Nov. 8, 
2022). On July 31, 2023, following the consideration of comments 
received in response to the ANPRM, the Commission published a NPRM in 
the Federal Register, proposing to add part 465 to 16 CFR, Chapter I, 
to prohibit certain specified unfair or deceptive acts or practices 
involving consumer reviews or testimonials. See 88 FR 49364 (July 31, 
2023).
    In accordance with section 18(b)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 
57a(b)(1), which requires the Commission to provide the opportunity for 
an informal hearing in section 18 rulemaking proceedings, the NPRM also 
announced the opportunity for interested persons to present their 
positions orally at an informal hearing.\1\ During the NPRM's comment 
period, the Commission received 100 responsive comments.\2\ Three of 
the commenters requested the opportunity to present their position 
orally at an informal hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 88 FR 49364 (July 31, 2023).
    \2\ See FTC, Reviews and Testimonials Rule, https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2023-0047-0001/comment. The 
Commission also received sixteen comments that are non-responsive 
and two that are duplicates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Requests for an Informal Hearing; Presentation of Oral 
Submissions

    Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, as implemented by the 
Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.11(e),\3\ provides interested 
persons with the opportunity to present their positions orally at an 
informal hearing upon request.\4\ To make such a request, a commenter 
must submit, no later than the close of the comment period for the 
NPRM, (1) a request to make an oral submission; (2) a statement 
identifying the interested person's interests in the proceeding; and 
(3) any proposal to add disputed issues of material fact to be 
addressed at the hearing.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FTC Act provides that ``an interested person is entitled 
to present his position orally or by documentary submission (or 
both).'' 15 U.S.C. 57a(c)(2)(A).
    \4\ 16 CFR 1.11(e).
    \5\ 16 CFR 1.11(e)(1) through (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following three commenters requested to present their positions 
orally at the informal hearing in accordance with requirements of 16 
CFR 1.11(e):
    1. Fake Review Watch; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fake Review Watch identified itself as an entity that ``has 
been investigating online review fraud for over five years and has 
produced over 80 videos documenting the scope of the problem across 
multiple third-party review platforms,'' and it recommended that the 
Commission impose specific disclosure requirements on third-party 
review platforms. Fake Review Watch, Cmt. on NPRM at 1 (Aug. 8, 
2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Interactive Advertising Bureau (``IAB''); \7\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ IAB represents ``over 700 leading media companies, brand 
marketers, agencies, and technology companies'' responsible for 
``selling, delivering, and optimizing digital advertising and 
marketing campaigns,'' and whose members ``account for 86 percent of 
online advertising expenditures'' in the U.S. IAB, Cmt. on NPRM at 
1, (Sept. 29, 2023) https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. A group of three researchers at Brigham Young University, The 
Pennsylvania State University, and Emory University 
(``Researchers'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Researchers ``have studied how online review platforms 
can earn consumer trust by taking specific actions against firms and 
reviewers who write and propagate fake reviews.'' The Researchers, 
Cmt. on NPRM, (Sept. 22, 2023) https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds these requests were adequate and therefore 
will hold an informal hearing. These commenters will have the 
opportunity to make oral presentations during the informal hearing. No 
other interested persons requested under 16 CFR 1.11(e) to participate 
in an informal hearing, and therefore no other interested persons will 
be permitted to make oral presentations at the informal hearing. The 
Commission declines to identify any group of interested persons with 
the same or similar interest in the proceeding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 16 CFR 1.12(a)(5) requires the initial notice of informal 
hearing to include a ``list of the groups of interested persons 
determined by the Commission to have the same or similar interests 
in the proceeding.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Disputed Issues of Material Fact; Final Notice

    In the NPRM, the Commission did not identify any disputed issues of 
material fact that needed to be resolved at an informal hearing. 
However, the Commission may still do so in the initial notice of 
informal hearing, either on its own initiative or in response to a 
persuasive showing from a commenter.\10\ IAB proposed several potential 
disputed issues of material fact for the Commission's 
consideration.\11\ IAB \12\ indicated that it ``intended to raise'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 16 CFR 1.12(a)(3); 15 U.S.C. 57a(c)(2)(B); see also 88 
FR 49364, 49381 (July 31, 2023).
    \11\ Fake Review Watch requested that ``the FTC hold an informal 
public hearing to give consumer advocates an opportunity to present 
evidence showing how third-party review platform policies and 
failures have contributed to the need for this rule in the first 
place.'' Fake Review Watch, Cmt. on NPRM at 3-44. Fake Review Watch, 
however, failed to identify any specific, disputed issues of 
material fact. The Researchers requested the opportunity to speak at 
a hearing to provide further explanation of their findings but did 
not identify any specific disputed issues of material fact. The 
Researchers, Cmt. on NPRM at 3.
    \12\ IAB, Cmt. on NPRM at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. ``Whether color, size, count, and flavor are the only attributes 
that would not confuse consumers when combined on a product page.''
    2. ``Whether the compliance costs for businesses will be minimal, 
particularly if the `knew or should have known' standard is 
finalized.''
    3. ``Whether the Commission's finding that unintended consequences 
from the NPRM are unlikely [is correct] (e.g., for fear of violating 
the review suppression section, businesses will allow more fake reviews 
to stay up on their websites).''
    To be appropriate for cross-examination or rebuttal, a disputed 
issue of material fact must raise ``specific facts'' that are 
``necessary to be resolved'' \13\ and not ``legislative facts.'' \14\ 
Unlike specific facts,

[[Page 2528]]

legislative facts ``help . . . determine the content of law and of 
policy'' and do not need to ``be developed through evidentiary 
hearings'' because they ``combine empirical observation with 
application of administrative expertise to reach generalized 
conclusions.'' \15\ Moreover, the relevant legislative history explains 
``disputed issues of material fact necessary to be resolved'' should be 
interpreted narrowly.\16\ In this context, ``disputed'' and 
``material'' are given the same meaning as in the standard for summary 
judgment.\17\ As in summary judgment, the challenging party must do 
more than simply assert there is a dispute regarding the Commission's 
findings. If those findings are otherwise adequately supported by 
record evidence, the challenging party must come forward with 
sufficient evidence to show there is a genuine, bona fide dispute over 
material facts that will affect the outcome of the proceeding.\18\ IAB 
proposed disputed issues of material fact challenging (1) the 
Commission's proposed definition of ``substantially different product'' 
as a ``product that differs from another product in one or more 
material attributes other than color, size, count, or flavor''; (2) the 
Commission's statements on the proposed Rule's economic impact; and (3) 
the Commission's NPRM's finding that unintended consequences from 
finalizing the proposed rule are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., 16 CFR 1.13(b)(1)(i) (issues that ``must'' be 
considered for cross-examination or rebuttal are only those disputed 
issues of fact the Commission determines to be ``material'' and 
``necessary to resolve'').
    \14\ 16 CFR 1.12(b)(1) (``An issue for cross-examination or the 
presentation of rebuttal submissions, is an issue of specific fact 
in contrast to legislative fact.''). ``The only disputed issues of 
material fact to be determined for resolution by the Commission are 
those issues characterized as issues of specific fact in contrast to 
legislative fact. It was the judgment of the conferees that more 
effective, workable and meaningful rules will be promulgated if 
persons affected by such rules have the opportunity afforded by the 
bill, by cross-examination and rebuttal evidence or other 
submissions, to challenge the factual assumptions on which the 
Commission is proceeding and to show in what respect such 
assumptions are erroneous.'' H.R. Rep. No. 93-1606, at 34 (Dec. 16, 
1974) (Conf. Rep.). Further, as explained in Association of National 
Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC, 627 F.2d 1151, 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the 
distinction between ``specific fact'' and ``legislative fact'' grew 
out of a recommendation from the Administrative Conference of the 
United States (ACUS):
    Conference Recommendation 72-5 is addressed exclusively to 
agency rulemaking of general applicability. In such a proceeding, 
almost by definition, adjudicative facts are not at issue, and the 
agency should ordinarily be free to, and ordinarily would, proceed 
by the route of written comments, supplemented, perhaps, by a 
legislative-type hearing. Yet there may arise occasionally in such 
rulemaking proceedings factual issues which, though not 
adjudicative, nevertheless justify exploration in a trial-type 
format because they are sufficiently narrow in focus and 
sufficiently material to the outcome of the proceeding to make it 
reasonable and useful for the agency to resort to trial-type 
procedure to resolve them. These are what the Recommendation refers 
to as issues of specific fact.
    Id. at 1164.
    \15\ Ass'n of Nat'l Advertisers, 627 F.2d at 1161-62.
    \16\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 93-1107, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 
reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7702, 7728; Ass'n of Nat'l 
Advertisers, 627 F.2d at 1163 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 93-1606, at 33 
(1974) (Conf. Report)).
    \17\ As explained in the legislative history:
    The words `disputed issues of material fact' are intended to 
describe and limit the scope of cross-examination in a rulemaking 
proceeding. Thus, the right of participants in the proceeding to 
cross-examine Commission witnesses does not include cross-
examination on issues as to which there is not a bona fide dispute. 
In this connection, the Committee considers the rules of summary 
judgment applied by the courts analogous. Where the weight of the 
evidence is such that there can be no bona fide dispute over the 
facts, summary judgment is proper. Similarly, in such a situation 
cross-examination would not be permitted; neither is a participant 
entitled to cross-examination where the disputed issues do not 
involve material facts. This language in the bill is used to 
distinguish facts which might be relevant to the proceeding but not 
of significant enough import to rise to the level of materiality. 
The word material is used here with the same meaning it is given 
under the common law rules of evidence. Also of importance is the 
word `fact.' Cross-examination is not required regarding issues in 
rulemaking proceedings which are not issues of fact. Examples of 
such issues are matters of law or policy or matters whose 
determination has been primarily vested by Congress in the Federal 
Trade Commission. Thus, unless the subject matter with regard as to 
which cross-examination is sought relates to disputed issues, which 
are material to the proposed rule and which are fact issues, there 
is no right to cross-examination on the part of any party to the 
proceeding.
    H.R. Rep. No. 93-1107, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1974 
U.S.C. C.A.N. 7702, 7728.
    \18\ Id.; see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 
242, 248 (1986) (explaining the standard as ``[o]nly disputes over 
facts that might affect the outcome''); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. 
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IAB's first proposed disputed issue of material fact questions the 
proposed definition of ``substantially different product,'' a term 
that, beyond the definition itself, appears only in proposed Sec.  
465.3. IAB asserted that the record did not contain evidence as to 
whether there are product attributes other than color, size, count, or 
flavor that can be combined on a product page without misleading 
consumers. In response to the NPRM, IAB and other commenters asserted 
that the reviews of products with certain differences other than color, 
size, count, or flavor could be linked without deceiving consumers and 
gave examples of what they argue are or could be such non-deceptive 
product differences.\19\ Other commenters supported the proposed 
definition as written but did not address whether there were other non-
deceptive product differences.\20\ The Commission has decided to not 
proceed at this time with proposed Sec.  465.3. It is therefore not 
necessary to address IAB's proposed disputed issue of material fact 
relating to the proposed definition of ``substantially different 
product.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See IAB, Cmt. on NPRM at 8 (asserting that it is non-
deceptive for reviews of a book offered as a paperback, e-book, 
audiobook, and hard cover to be presented on the same page); 
Amazon.com, Inc., Cmt. on NPRM at 10 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0085 (asserting non-
deceptive linking of crew neck and v-neck undershirts); U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, Cmt. on NPRM at 7 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0087 (referring to linked 
reviews for cotton and sateen sheets from the same company, for a 
ceramic bowl with or without handles from a small seller, or for 
annual iterations of dog toys with new characters); National Retail 
Federation, Cmt. on NPRM at 7-8 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0090 (asserting non-
deceptive linking of the same products with different patterns, 
materials, or artwork; t-shirts with v-necks and crewnecks; scents 
of soap; and individual golf clubs of the same set); Retail Industry 
Leaders Association, Cmt. on NPRM at 3 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0094 (arguing that other 
attributes that do not change the overall design and formulation of 
a product should not be considered ``substantial differences''); 
Association of National Advertisers, Cmt. on NPRM at 15-16 (Sept. 
29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0105 
(asserting that the bundling of air fresheners with different scents 
or sunscreens with different SPFs can be non-deceptive and making 
similar assertions about products that come in squeeze tube versions 
or that are sold in bundles).
    \20\ See Trustpilot, Cmt. on NPRM at 10 (Sept. 29, 2023), 
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0084; Consumer 
Reports, Cmt. on NPRM at 7 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0047-0099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IAB also proposed two other disputed issues of material fact, which 
involve the Commission's findings: (1) on the proposed Rule's economic 
impact; and (2) that unintended consequences from finalizing the 
proposed rule are unlikely.
    First, such findings are sufficiently supported by substantial 
evidence in the record, and the commenter identified no evidence 
challenging the FTC's conclusions. For example, the cost estimates in 
the NPRM are specific and based on empirical data. Staff's careful 
analysis of this data resulted in the well-reasoned conclusion that, 
even under a ``heightened compliance review scenario'' for firms that 
decide to be extra-cautious, and even with a conservative estimation of 
benefits, such benefits would still dwarf the minimal costs.
    Second, these two proposed issues challenge the Commission's 
findings only as to ``legislative facts,'' which, unlike specific 
facts, ``help . . . determine the content of law and of policy'' and do 
not need to ``be developed through evidentiary hearings'' because they 
``combine empirical observation with application of administrative 
expertise to reach generalized conclusions.'' \21\ General concerns 
about a rule's overall effect on the marketplace, whether framed in 
terms of economic impact or unintended consequences, are precisely the 
sort of questions of policy or broad fact intended to fall under the 
category of ``legislative facts.'' As these two issues do not raise 
questions of ``specific fact,'' they do not warrant cross-examination 
and rebuttal submissions.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Ass'n of Nat'l Advertisers, 627 F.2d at 1161-62.
    \22\ See supra nn.13-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Commission finds that there are no ``disputed issues of 
material fact''

[[Page 2529]]

to resolve at the hearing \23\ and no need for cross-examination or 
rebuttal submissions.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ If any interested person seeks to have additional disputed 
issues of material fact designated, the person may make such request 
to the presiding officer pursuant to 16 CFR 1.13(b)(1)(ii).
    \24\ 16 CFR 1.12(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This initial notice of informal hearing also serves as the ``final 
notice of informal hearing.'' \25\ A final notice of informal hearing 
is limited in its substance to matters that arise only when the 
Commission designates disputed issues of material fact: who will 
conduct cross-examination; whether any interested persons with similar 
interests will be grouped together for such purposes; and who will make 
rebuttal submissions.\26\ Because cross-examination and submission of 
rebuttal evidence are not anticipated to occur in this informal 
hearing, no separate final notice of informal hearing is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 16 CFR 1.12(c).
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. List of Hearing Participants; Making an Oral Statement; Requests 
for Documentary Submissions

    Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.12(a)(4), 16 CFR 1.12(a)(4), the 
following is the list of interested persons (``Hearing Participants'') 
who will have the opportunity to make oral presentations at the 
informal hearing:
    1. Fake Review Watch;
    2. IAB; and
    3. The Researchers.
    Oral statements will be limited to 30 minutes, although they may be 
supplemented by documentary submissions as described below, and the 
presiding officer may grant an extension of time for good cause shown. 
Transcripts of the oral statements will be placed in the rulemaking 
record. Hearing Participants will be provided with instructions as to 
how to participate in the virtual hearing.
    If you are a Hearing Participant and would like to submit your oral 
presentation in writing or file a supplementary documentary submission, 
you can do so by submitting a comment on this rulemaking docket. You 
must do so on or before January 30, 2024. Write ``Reviews and 
Testimonials Rule; Project No. P214504'' on your submission. If you 
file a documentary submission under this section, your documentary 
submission--including your name and your state--will be placed on the 
public record of this proceeding, including on the website https://www.regulations.gov. To ensure the Commission considers your online 
documentary submission, please follow the instructions on the web-based 
form.
    Because your documentary submission will be placed on the public 
record, you are solely responsible for making sure that it does not 
include any sensitive or confidential information. Your documentary 
submission should not contain sensitive personal information, such as 
your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's 
license number or other state identification number or foreign country 
equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or 
debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure your 
documentary submission does not include any sensitive health 
information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable 
health information. In addition, your documentary submission should not 
include any ``[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information 
which . . . is privileged or confidential''--as provided in section 
6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Commission Rule 4.10(a)(2), 
16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--including, in particular, competitively sensitive 
information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 
patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
    Documentary submissions containing material for which confidential 
treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly 
labeled ``Confidential,'' and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c), 
16 CFR 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential 
treatment that accompanies the submission must include the factual and 
legal basis for the confidentiality request and must identify the 
specific portions to be withheld from the public record. See Commission 
Rule 4.9(c). Your documentary submission will be kept confidential only 
if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law 
and the public interest. Once your documentary submission has been 
posted publicly at https://www.regulations.gov--as legally required by 
Commission Rule 4.9(b), 16 CFR 4.9(b)--we cannot redact or remove it, 
unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements 
for such treatment under Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c), and the 
General Counsel grants that request.
    Visit the FTC website to read this document and the news release 
describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission 
administers permit the collection of submissions to consider and use in 
this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely 
and responsive documentary submissions it receives from the Hearing 
Participants on or before January 30, 2024. For information on the 
Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the 
Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.
    Hearing Participants who need assistance should indicate as much in 
their comment, and the Commission will endeavor to provide 
accommodations. Hearing Participants without the computer technology 
necessary to participate in video conferencing will be able to 
participate in the informal hearing by telephone; they should indicate 
as much in their comments.

V. Conduct of the Informal Hearing; Role of Presiding Officer

    The Commission's Chief Presiding Officer, the Chair, has appointed 
and designates the Honorable Carol Fox Foelak, Administrative Law Judge 
for the Securities and Exchange Commission, to serve as the presiding 
officer of the informal hearing. Judge Foelak will conduct the informal 
hearing virtually using video conferencing starting at 10:00 a.m. 
Eastern on February 13, 2024. The informal hearing will be available 
for the public to watch live from the Commission's website, https://www.ftc.gov, and a recording or transcript of the informal hearing will 
be placed in the rulemaking record.
    Because there are no ``disputed issues of material fact'' to 
resolve at the informal hearing, the presiding officer is not 
anticipated to make a recommended decision. The role of the presiding 
officer therefore will be to preside over and ensure the orderly 
conduct of the informal hearing, including selecting the sequence in 
which oral statements will be heard, and to place the transcript and 
any additional written submissions received into the rulemaking record. 
The presiding officer may prescribe additional procedures or issue 
rulings in accordance with 16 CFR 1.13. In execution of the presiding 
officer's obligations and responsibilities under the Commission Rules, 
the presiding officer may issue additional public notices.

VI. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their 
Advisors

    Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.18(c)(1), 16 CFR 1.18(c)(1), the 
Commission has determined that communications with respect to the 
merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or

[[Page 2530]]

Commissioner advisor shall be subject to the following treatment. 
Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral 
communications shall be placed on the rulemaking record if the 
communication is received before the end of the comment period. They 
shall be placed on the public record if the communication is received 
later. Unless the outside party making an oral communication is a 
member of Congress, such communications are permitted only if advance 
notice is published in the Weekly Calendar and Notice of ``Sunshine'' 
Meetings.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 15 U.S.C. 57a(i)(2)(A); 16 CFR 1.18(c).

    By direction of the Commission.
Joel Christie,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-00678 Filed 1-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P