Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 90691 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kimberly Weaver, Office of External 

Affairs, (202) 942–1640. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Board Meeting Agenda 

Open Session 

1. Approval of the October 22, 2024, 

Board Meeting Minutes 

2. Monthly Reports 

(a) Participant Report 

(b) Investment Report 

(c) Legislative Report 

3. Quarterly Reports 

(d) Metrics Report 

Closed Session 

4. Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c)(6), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10). 

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b (e)(1)) 

Dated: November 13, 2024. 

Dharmesh Vashee, 

General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift 

Investment Board. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26805 Filed 11–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6760–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 232 3060] 

Sitejabber; Analysis of Proposed 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

Federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices. The attached 

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to 

Aid Public Comment describes both the 

allegations in the complaint and the 

terms of the consent order—embodied 

in the consent agreement—that would 

settle these allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 18, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments online or on paper by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Please write ‘‘Sitejabber; File No. 

232 3060’’ on your comment and file 

your comment online at https://

www.regulations.gov by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, please mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail 

Stop H–144 (Annex J), Washington, DC 

20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Dela Pen ̃ a (202–326–2722), 

Attorney, Division of Advertising 

Practices, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule § 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of 30 days. The following Analysis to 

Aid Public Comment describes the 

terms of the consent agreement and the 

allegations in the complaint. An 

electronic copy of the full text of the 

consent agreement package can be 

obtained at https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/commission-actions. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before December 18, 2024. Write 

‘‘Sitejabber; File No. 232 3060’’ on your 

comment. Your comment—including 

your name and your State—will be 

placed on the public record of this 

proceeding, including, to the extent 

practicable, on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

Because of heightened security 

screening, postal mail addressed to the 

Commission will be subject to delay. We 

strongly encourage you to submit your 

comments online through the https://

www.regulations.gov website. If you 

prefer to file your comment on paper, 

write ‘‘Sitejabber; File No. 232 3060’’ on 

your comment and on the envelope, and 

mail your comment to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop 

H–144 (Annex J), Washington, DC 

20580. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible website at 

https://www.regulations.gov, you are 

solely responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include 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 

comment does not include sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule § 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 

4.10(a)(2)—including competitively 

sensitive information such as costs, 

sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 

§ 4.9(c). In particular, the written 

request for confidential treatment that 

accompanies the comment must include 

the factual and legal basis for the 

request and must identify the specific 

portions of the comment to be withheld 

from the public record. See FTC Rule 

§ 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept 

confidential only if the General Counsel 

grants your request in accordance with 

the law and the public interest. Once 

your comment has been posted on the 

https://www.regulations.gov website—as 

legally required by FTC Rule § 4.9(b)— 

we cannot redact or remove your 

comment from that website, unless you 

submit a confidentiality request that 

meets the requirements for such 

treatment under FTC Rule § 4.9(c), and 

the General Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website at https://

www.ftc.gov to read this document and 

the news release describing the 

proposed settlement. The FTC Act and 

other laws the Commission administers 

permit the collection of public 

comments to consider and use in this 

proceeding, as appropriate. The 

Commission will consider all timely 

and responsive public comments it 

receives on or before December 18, 

2024. For information on the 

Commission’s privacy policy, including 

routine uses permitted by the Privacy 

Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/siteinformation/privacy-policy. 

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To 

Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject to 

final approval, an agreement containing 

a consent order from GGL Projects, Inc., 

which does business as Sitejabber 

(‘‘Sitejabber’’). The proposed consent 

order (‘‘proposed order’’) has been 

placed on the public record for thirty 

days for receipt of comments by 

interested persons. Comments received 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
90692 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 

1See, e.g., In re Shell Oil Co., 128 F.T.C. 749, 764 

(1999) (majority statement) (‘‘It is well settled law 

that the originator is liable if it passes on a false 

or misleading representation with knowledge or 

reason to expect that consumers may possibly be 

deceived as a result.’’) (citing Regina Corp. v. FTC, 

322 F.2d 765 768 (3d Cir. 1963) (affirming liability 

under means and instrumentalities theory where 

defendant distributed its own misrepresentative 

price lists that were used, in turn, to deceive 

consumers)); id. at 766 (Commissioner Swindle, 

dissenting) (‘‘Means and instrumentalities is a form 

of primary liability, and a respondent is primarily 

liable only for its own misrepresentations to 

consumers.’’). 

2Compl. ¶ 22. 

3 Id. ¶¶ 23–25. 

4 Dissenting Statement of Comm’r Melissa 

Holyoak, Joined by Comm’r Andrew N. Ferguson, 

In re Rytr, LLC, FTC Matter No. 2323052 (Sept. 25, 

2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ 

holyoak-rytr-statement.pdf. 

5See generally id.; see also Dissenting Statement 

of Comm’r Andrew N. Ferguson, Joined by Comm’r 

Melissa Holyoak, In re Rytr LLC, Matter No. 232 

3052 (Sept. 25, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/ 

files/ftc_gov/pdf/ferguson-rytr-statement.pdf. 

during this period will become part of 

the public record. After thirty days, the 

Commission will again review the 

agreement and the comments received 

and will decide whether it should 

withdraw from the agreement and take 

appropriate action or make final the 

agreement’s proposed order. 

This matter involves consumer 

reviews and ratings of businesses and 

products that Sitejabber collected on 

behalf of its clients’ businesses. It 

collected these ratings and reviews from 

consumers at the time of purchase, 

before consumers had an opportunity to 

actually experience the product or 

service purchased. According to the 

FTC, Sitejabber used these point-ofpurchase results to inflate the ratings 

and review counts of its clients on the 

Sitejabber.com review platform and in 

Google and other search results. The 

complaint explains that Sitejabber also 

provided its clients with product review 

widgets that allowed them to publish, 

on their own websites, product-specific 

ratings and reviews that Sitejabber 

collected. 

The complaint alleges that Sitejabber 

violated section 5(a) of the FTC Act by 

misrepresenting that point-of-sale 

ratings and reviews reflected the 

experiences of consumers who had 

actually received and had the 

opportunity to experience the product 

or services purchased. The complaint 

further alleges that Sitejabber provided 

its business clients with the means and 

instrumentalities to deceive consumers 

that product reviews and ratings 

collected at the time of purchase and 

displayed on the clients’ websites were 

from consumers who had received and 

had the opportunity to experience the 

product being reviewed. 

The proposed order contains 

provisions designed to prevent 

Sitejabber from engaging in these and 

similar acts and practices in the future. 

Provision I prohibits Sitejabber from 

misrepresenting or assisting others in 

misrepresenting that the average 

customer rating or total number of 

ratings or reviews of a product, service, 

or business reflects the views of 

customers who had received the 

product or service purchased and had 

the opportunity to experience it, or that 

any rating or review collected at the 

time or point of purchase was collected 

from a customer who received the 

product or service purchased or had the 

opportunity to experience the product 

or service purchased. The provision also 

prohibits misrepresentations about any 

ratings, average ratings, or reviews that 

Sitejabber collects, moderates, or 

displays. Provision II prohibits 

Sitejabber from providing others with 

the means or instrumentalities to 

misrepresent that product or service 

ratings or reviews collected at the point 

of purchase were collected from 

customers who had the opportunity to 

experience the product or service 

purchased. 

Provisions III through VII of the 

proposed order contain reporting and 

compliance provisions. Provision III 

mandates that Sitejabber acknowledge 

receipt of the order, distribute the order 

to principals, officers, and certain 

employees and agents, and obtain 

signed acknowledgments from them. 

Provision IV requires Sitejabber to 

submit compliance reports to the 

Commission one year after the order’s 

issuance and submit notifications when 

certain events occur. Under Provision V, 

Sitejabber must create certain records 

for ten years and retain them for five 

years. Provision VI provides for the 

FTC’s continued compliance monitoring 

of Sitejabber’s activity during the order’s 

effective dates. Finally, Provision VII 

provides the effective dates of the order, 

including that, with exceptions, the 

order will terminate in 20 years. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

proposed order. It is not intended to 

constitute an official interpretation of 

the complaint or proposed order, or to 

modify in any way the proposed order’s 

terms. 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

Concurring Statement of Commissioner 

Melissa Holyoak 

I support today’s settlement with 

Sitejabber, an online review platform 

that collected customer ratings and 

reviews about shopping experiences and 

products through surveys displayed on 

the checkout screen. The crux of the 

Complaint is that Sitejabber allegedly 

(1) misrepresented that customer ratings 

and reviews displayed on its website 

and in internet search results were from 

consumers who had the opportunity to 

experience the products or services 

purchased, and (2) provided its clients 

using the embeddable web widget with 

the ‘‘means and instrumentalities’’ to 

misrepresent that the displayed 

customer reviews and ratings were from 

customers who had actually purchased 

or experienced the product or service. I 

write in brief to note our proper use of 

the ‘‘means and instrumentalities’’ 

doctrine here, a form of primary liability 

appropriate where the defendant itself 

engages in deception.1

The Complaint alleges that 

Sitejabber’s embeddable web widget, 

which displayed Instant Feedback 

Product Reviews (‘‘IFPRs’’), was, as 

designed, an inherently deceptive tool. 

While Sitejabber collected real feedback 

about customers’ shopping choices at 

the point-of-sale,2 Sitejabber’s widget 

displayed it on customer-facing 

websites as ‘‘star’’ ratings of products 

themselves. According to the 

Complaint, Sitejabber built a mismatch 

into IFPRs, limiting real customer 

reviews to one aspect (shopping 

choices), while displaying those reviews 

about an entirely different aspect (the 

product itself).3 Importantly, there is no 

suggestion that Sitejabber’s clients had 

the ability to control or customize the 

output from the embeddable web 

widget. Thus, Sitejabber allegedly 

designed, distributed, and deployed 

IFPRs for its clients, in short, to mislead 

consumers about what product ratings 

signified. 

Unlike the Commission’s Complaint 

against review writing platform Rytr,4

this Complaint properly alleges that 

Sitejabber provided the ‘‘means and 

instrumentalities’’ to deceive 

consumers. Whereas Rytr provided a 

neutral review-writing tool that may 

have been used deceptively in some 

instances,5 we allege here that the only 

function of Sitejabber’s embeddable web 

widget, as designed, was to enable its 

clients to display a deceptive 

description of its instant ratings and 

reviews on their own websites. 

Of course, there is nothing inherently 

deceptive about the collection, use, and 

display of consumer reviews, where the 

output accurately reflects the input. 

Indeed, such products could be highly 

valuable to both consumers and the 

market, enabling businesses to tout real 

customer reviews about their products 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 90693 

1 In re GGL Projects, Inc., a corporation, also d/ 

b/a Sitejabber, Complaint & Decision and Order. 

2 15 U.S.C. 45(a). 

3 Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew 

N. Ferguson, Joined by Commissioner Melissa 

Holyoak, In the Matter of Rytr LLC, Matter No. 

2323052 (Sept. 25, 2024) (‘‘Ferguson Rytr Dissent’’). 

4For some of Sitejabber’s clients, the ratings 

would also incorporate reviews from consumers 

who had a chance to receive and use the products. 

Such reviews are not inherently deceptive, and 

nothing in the Commission’s proposed consent 

order would prohibit Sitejabber from displaying 

those reviews, and the average ratings derived from 

them, on its own site or through widgets. See 

Decision & Order at 5–6 (prohibiting Sitejabber from 

misrepresenting that reviews collected at the point 

of sale were from customers who had an 

opportunity to receive and use the product, from 

misrepresenting that ratings were derived only from 

reviews left by customers who had such an 

opportunity, and from providing the means and 

instrumentalities to make such misrepresentations). 

But comingling such reviews with reviews collected 

at the point-of-sale, before the consumer could have 

received and used the product, renders the entire 

star rating deceptive. See United States v. Phillip 

Morris USA Inc., 566 F.3d 1095, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 

2009) (‘‘[E]ven partially true statements can be 

actionable fraud if intentionally misleading as to 

facts.’’). 

or services and facilitating more 

informed consumer decisions about 

their shopping experience or the 

product itself. But design choices matter 

when developing these types of 

products. And Sitejabber’s design 

choice here conflated real customer 

feedback about shopping choices with 

an actual rating for a product, harming 

its clients and consumers. 

Concurring Statement of Commissioner 

Andrew N. Ferguson 

Today, the Commission issues an 

administrative complaint and accepts a 

proposed consent agreement with 

Sitejabber.1 Sitejabber provided its 

clients, e-commerce stores, with the 

ability to collect instant shoppingexperience and product reviews from 

customers on order confirmation 

screens—immediately after placing an 

order but before the customer could 

have received or used the products. For 

posting these reviews and average 

ratings on its clients’ profile pages on 

Sitejabber.com, and misrepresenting 

that the reviews were from customers 

who had actually received and used the 

products, the complaint accuses 

Sitejabber of deceiving consumers in 

violation of section 5 of the FTC Act.2

For giving its clients the ability to 

embed those same product ratings on 

their own websites, the complaint 

accuses Sitejabber of a further section 5 

violation for furnishing its clients with 

the means and instrumentalities to 

deceive consumers. I concur in both 

counts. 

This case presents some of the same 

issues presented in the Commission’s 

recent action against the artificialintelligence platform Rytr, from which I 

dissented.3 The Commission raises the 

same means-and-instrumentalities 

theory of section 5 liability that it 

deployed against Rytr for offering an AIpowered consumer review generator. 

Sitejabber’s alleged business practices, 

however, are very different from Rytr’s. 

Although someone could have used 

Rytr’s tool to deceive consumers, the 

tool also had substantial lawful uses. 

Sitejabber’s instant product reviews and 

the widgets by which its clients 

displayed them on their own websites, 

however, served no purpose other than 

to deceive consumers. Indeed, it appears 

that Sitejabber’s very purpose in offering 

the widgets was to assist its clients in 

deceiving consumers. 

Sitejabber collected two types of 

reviews from consumers. Instant 

Feedback Surveys (IFSs) asked 

customers to comment on their 

shopping experience immediately after 

concluding a purchase, and to rate that 

experience on a scale of one-to-five 

stars. Instant Feedback Product Reviews 

(IFPRs) also took the form of a written 

response and a one-to-five-star rating, 

but asked customers why they chose the 

product they had just purchased. 

Sitejabber would collect these reviews 

from the consumer on the retailer’s web 

page. Prompts to collect the reviews 

would pop up on the retailer web page 

almost immediately after the consumer 

had finalized a purchase. 

Sitejabber maintained a public profile 

page on Sitejabber.com for each of its 

retail clients showing their average 

rating and individual reviews, including 

IFS-derived ratings and reviews. 

Additionally, on a ‘‘Products’’ tab on 

that same page, Sitejabber listed the 

products sold by that client alongside 

the average IFPR ratings for each.4

Consumers browsing these profile pages 

would reasonably believe that all these 

reviews and ratings were from 

customers who had received and had a 

chance to use the products sold by the 

retailers. The Commission alleges that 

Sitejabber did not adequately disclose 

that these reviews and ratings were 

obtained at the point of sale, before the 

customers could have received, let alone 

used, the purchased products. For 

misrepresenting IFSs and IFPRs as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1EN18NO24.003</GPH>

'!lllli,,W!ift._.,_,_~~~ 

............... ................. _ 

***** - ***** 

Instant Feedback Product Reviews 

Instant Feedback Survey (IFS) 

(IFPRs) 
90694 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Notices 

5Ferguson Rytr Dissent at 1–2. 

6 Id. at 6–7. 

7 Id. at 2. 

8 Id. at 7. 

9 Id. at 5–6. 

10 Id. at 6. 

11 Id. at 7–9. 

12 Ibid. 

13FTC Policy Statement on Deception, 103 F.T.C. 

174, 175 (1984), https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/ 

browse/ftc-policy-statement-deception, appended to 

In Re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984) 

(in determining whether a practice is deceptive ‘‘we 

examine the practice from the perspective of a 

consumer acting reasonably’’). 

authentic reviews from customers who 

had received and had a chance to use 

the products, the complaint charges 

Sitejabber with deceptive conduct in 

violation of section 5. 

Sitejabber is also accused of having 

provided its retail clients with widgets 

by which the retailers could embed the 

IFPR-derived product ratings on their 

own websites. These widgets had no 

purpose other than to represent that 

those product ratings were derived from 

the reviews of consumers who had 

received and had a chance to use the 

product in question. This representation 

was false given that the ratings were 

obtained from consumers who had not 

received the product when they 

provided the rating. For offering this 

widget, the complaint charges Sitejabber 

with a further section 5 violation for 

providing the means and 

instrumentalities for the commission of 

deceptive acts and practices. 

Sitejabber’s condemned business 

practices are very different from Rytr’s. 

Rytr provided an AI-powered writing 

tool which could be used to generate 

draft consumer reviews.5 Although a 

consumer or business could have used 

Rytr’s tool to generate a false product 

review, and that false product review 

could in some circumstances violate 

section 5’s prohibition on deceptive acts 

or practices, that was not necessarily the 

case.6 Indeed, the Commission did not 

supply a single example of someone 

having used Rytr’s tool to violate section 

5.7 A consumer also could have used 

Rytr’s tool to generate an initial draft of 

a perfectly honest consumer review.8

The mere fact that someone could use 

a product to commit fraud does not 

make that product the means and 

instrumentalities to commit fraud.9 In 

my view, the provision of a product or 

service with potential unlawful uses is 

not the provision of the means and 

instrumentalities to violate section 5 

unless (1) the instrumentality in 

question ‘‘has no or de minimis legal 

use’’; 10 (2) the provider of the 

instrumentality had the purpose of 

facilitating the section 5 violation; 11 or 

(3) the provider ‘‘knows, or has reason 

to know, that the person to whom the 

product or service was supplied will use 

it to violate section 5.’’ 12

Whereas Rytr’s review generator tool 

satisfied none of those requirements, the 

allegations in the complaint here show 

that Sitejabber’s product satisfies all 

three. First, there is no legitimate 

purpose for a widget displaying an 

instant product review rating. No 

reasonable consumer would be 

interested in a one-to-five-star product 

rating derived from reviews left by other 

consumers who had not yet received or 

used the product.13 When a consumer 

views a product rating, he reasonably 

assumes that the rating is based on 

reviewers’ experiences with the 

product, not with the purchasing 

process. Second, because the widgets 

had no use other than to deceive 

consumers, we can reasonably infer that 

Sitejabber knew that every single one of 

its clients was using them for that 

purpose. Finally, there is ample 

evidence that Sitejabber’s very purpose 

in offering the widgets was to assist in 

the deception of consumers. The 

widgets were nothing but an extension 

of the same deception that Sitejabber 

was carrying out on its own website 

using the same deceptive ratings and on 

behalf of the same clients. 

I therefore concur in the 

Commission’s complaint and proposed 

consent order against Sitejabber. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26711 Filed 11–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR 

GLOBAL MEDIA 

Performance Review Board Members 

AGENCY: United States Agency for 

Global Media. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States Agency for 

Global Media (USAGM) announces the 

members of its SES Performance Review 

Board (PRB). 

ADDRESSES: USAGM Office of Human 

Resources, 330 Independence Ave. SW, 

Washington, DC 20237. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellona Fritschie, Senior Advisor, at 

efritschie@usagm.gov or (202) 920–2400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314, USAGM 

publishes this notice announcing the 

individuals who will serve as members 

of the PRB for a term of one year. The 

PRB is responsible for: (1) reviewing 

performance appraisals and ratings of 

Senior Executive Service and Senior 

Level members; and (2) making 

recommendations on other performance 

management issues, such as pay 

adjustments, bonuses, and Presidential 

Rank Awards. The names, position 

titles, and appointment types of each 

member of the PRB are set forth below: 

1. Grant Turner, Chief Risk Officer, 

Career SES 

2. David Kotz, Chief Management 

Officer, Career SES 

3. Sylvia Rosabal, Director, Office of 

Cuban Broadcasting, Non-Career SES 

4. Adrienne Fleming, Deputy Director, 

TSI, Career SES 

Dated: November 13, 2024. 

Armanda Matthews, 

Program Support Specialist, U.S. Agency for 

Global Media. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26849 Filed 11–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8610–01–P 

GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM 

RESTORATION COUNCIL 

[Docket No.: 111132024–1111–05] 

Senior Executive Service Performance 

Review Board Membership 

AGENCY: Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council (GCERC). 

ACTION: Notice of Performance Review 

Board (PRB) appointments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

members of the Senior Executive 

Service (SES) Performance Review 

Board. The PRB is comprised of a 

Chairperson and a mix of state 

representatives and career senior 

executives that meet annually to review 

and evaluate performance appraisal 

documents and provide a written 

recommendation to the Chairperson of 

the Council for final approval of each 

executive’s performance rating, 

performance-based pay adjustment, and 

performance award. 

DATES: The board membership is 

applicable beginning on January 1, 2024 

and ending on December 31, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary S. Walker, Executive Director, 

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 

Council, telephone 504–210–9982. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 

persons named below have been 

selected to serve on the PRB: 

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 

Council 

Walker, Mary S., Executive Director, 

Mary.Walker@restorethegulf.gov, 504– 

210–9982 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1